Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal


 * 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 merge to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Opinions are 3:6:3 for keep/merge/delete respectively, which indicates that merge is the most consensual position. The discussion indicates that there is content relevant to the main article that should be retained because it goes beyond the usual quotefarm of reaction articles. What to merge and how is a decision to be made through the editorial process.  Sandstein  08:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I recently put this item at In the news/Candidates and met with staunch opposition not only to this article's listing but to its very existence. One editor commented "These cruft filled 'reactions to' articles are a blight on Wikipedia. And there aren't significant updates meriting ongoing." A second opined "'Reaction' articles should be more than just quote farms which that one is. Reactions should only be included if there's actual 'actions' tied to it, just not strong words." I'm going to AfD to seek consensus to delete this article. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Completing the deletion nomination for 92.29.28.146 per Talk:Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. No opinion on the merits. Huon (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reactions are sufficiently covered in Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I agree that most of this Reactions article consists of unnecessary quotes from everybody and their dog. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Whilst both can make a case for WP:N, we shouldn't make our readers have to navigate between two separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. It's a thoroughly bloated content fork of which at least 2/3 has little or nor encyclopedic value and much of what does is already found in the main article. Pro forma statements can be summarized in one or two sentences to the effect "there was widespread international condemnation over the incident blah blah blah..." . Diplomatic expulsions need to be covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Listing every major national reaction is not appropriate material. Strip out the that are simply quotes and represent no action or other connection to the issue (this otherwise is a QUOTEFARM problem). Once that's stripped to the diplomatic stuff and key reactions from UK and Russia (principally the only countries with any say here), then that all merges fine into the other article. --M asem (t) 22:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Select merge This is similar to the "Reactions to..." articles on terrorist attacks that I nominated for deletion a few months ago and were ultimately deleted/merged. Strip the quote farm from this and focus on summarizing the diplomatic matters in the main article...where it belongs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 00:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 00:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 00:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a major diplomatic event, and merging this into the main Poisoning article would clog it up with minute details about reactions from the major players (United Kingdom, Russia, United States, etc.), even if a lot of the fluff statements were removed. A better solution would be to just trim the current Reactions article of this fluff. FallingGravity 00:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Minute details" are not encyclopaedic content, nor are any "fluff statements". If it doesn't blong in the main article it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Minute details" are definitely encyclopaedic and worthy of inclusion if they're covered in multiple secondary sources, such as is the case here. FallingGravity 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Being covered in multiple reliable secondary sources is a requirement for demonstrating notability, but that does not mean that everything covdered in such sources is notable. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:QUOTEFARM. We really should almost never have a "reactions to..." article about anything. If specific reactions are notable independently of the thing they are a reaction to they should have a section or article specifically about them, e.g. in this case there might be an article about the diplomatic expulsions. Most of the "reactions to" articles can be entirely summarised by "world leaders and other famous people expressed shock and sympathy and condemmned the perpetrators on twitter." Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I said the fluff statements should be removed. FallingGravity 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But takeaway the fluff and you're not left with anywhere near enough for a standalone article - especially as most of what isn't fluff is already present in the main article. Some (perhaps most) of the quotations are educational, but virtually none of them are encyclopaedic - Wikiquote exists for precisely this reason. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge the limited encyclopaedic prose that isn't already there, put the quotes on Wikiquote, and delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge - Mostly to Wikiquote. I had considered this previously but wasn't sure whether it would meet with strong opposition for such a lengthy article. Some of the content isn't even really appropriate for WQ. I mean, why should anyone care that tiny Luxembourg decided to take no immediate action. Or similarly, why Malta's official reaction was essentially "now that you mention it, we're actually too small to matter anyway".  G M G  talk  12:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete quote farm. Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 92.11.149.25 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Normally I do not support separate articles like this, but there is too much material for a merge, and the event is clearly of major historical importance.  DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That the event is of major historical importance is irrelevant to whether this content is encyclopaedic or not - and almost all of it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh...but saying it's not encyclopedic is not necessarily the same as saying it's not educational. I think a lot of it is educational; it just belong on Wikiquote. Having said that, even if there is a consensus for deletion, it would be helpful if the closer could either close as a temporary redirect, or temporary draftify to give time to drag content over to quote, so that us mere mortals can access the content.  G M G  talk  01:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Redirects are cheap; I've certainly no objection to a redirect being made, preserving the history so content can be salvaged for more appropriate locations/projects. It's such a high-profile event that there may well be links coming in to this from all kinds of places so a redirect will probably be needed indefinitely. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – While the article clearly needs work, I don't think it merits deletion. And, as others have mentioned, there is far too much content for it to be merged.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 02:10, 23 April 2018 (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.