Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The deletion rationale has been significantly refuted in the discussion below, and the sole delete !vote (other than the nomination) is not policy-based. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic fails GNG. All sources relate to the shooting, not the "reactions" to it. As such thats WP:SYNTH to try and craft an article about it. Stuff happened because of this shooting - which means it belongs in the main shooting article. Beerest 2 talk 02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * keep per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLITTING. this is indeed content about the shooting, but there is a lot of the content and putting it all into the main article would swamp it. spinning off sub articles for detailed contents is entirely appropriate and normal. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a valid content split. The main article was too long so I split this information out to its own article.  It survived one AFD already, and we had discussions about it on the talk page previously.  Mentioning what the leaders of various nations around the world said about an incident, is historically important, which is why we have Category:Reactions articles.   D r e a m Focus  03:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per previous AfD as well as above. The article is on an entirely separate topic. PrairieKid (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the cruft and merge the rest: Most of this is just statements by people responding to an event in the news. The event is notable, and the statements, eh, not so much.   p  b  p  04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article isn't just about reactions, which spanned the globe, but also deals with how it spurred gun control measures. We have plenty of "cruft" on Wikipedia but to use this term to refer to this article is outrageous. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A well researched and reasoned article with a specific focus that is supported by reliable sources should not be deleted, this is part of the WP:DETAIL aspect of Wikipedia. This content is far more detailed then necessary for the main article and justifies the split. It should continue to be improved and reorganized so state and national interests are present above international condolences. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps the article has been revised since nomination, but in its current state it focuses entirely on the reactions and is clearly bulletproof in its notability. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Article hasn't changed at all since then.  Hasn't changed much at all since it was created over a year ago.   D r e a m Focus  16:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I am perplexed as to why this was nominated. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - dont understand the nomination really. It is clearly notable with reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is this nominated for deletion? There are clearly many reliable sources for this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not long since the last nomination and it was kept then. Clearly notable, clearly useful, and clearly has reliable sources.  Neonchameleon (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't understand delete rationale. The article's title reflects the content. Sourced reactions to the shooting. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.