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 delete. Consensus is that this is an inappropriate quote farm. The "wrong venue" opinion is not taken into account as WP:AFD is clearly the proper venue in which to discuss the deletion of an article. Sandstein 10:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is yet another memorial page where countries respond to an attack with condemnation and condolences, sometimes in the "strongest terms". However, there is nothing inherently notable about these quotes and to put them all together like this is WP:SYNTH. The 2011 Norway attacks already sufficiently summarizes what this quote farm tries to convey hence a merge is entirely unnecessary and damaging. Note, I am not here to question the notability of the attacks, that is well-asserted and a given, but rather this page which gathered quotes simply to keep them away from the main article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - I am aware of the last two outcomes at AFD but my rationale is different and I believe editors have come a long way toward understanding why these pages do not meet notability standards or what Wikipedia is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In short even though this has been snow kept and keep with massive majority consensus with alot of good comments, twice - this is irrelevant and no one has previous considered your brilliant reasoning which has worked on at least two AfD's recently. I am not knocking your rationale, but in my opinion in this case it is not applicable, and Wikipedia does not run by precedent. However I will also note that the NOTNEWS aspect has been considered in both previous nominations on this article and rejected, and NOTNEWS was a key reason for the other similar AfD's working out how they did. It will be interesting to see what happens, this could result in a blanket deletion of articles if consensus allows this to go. Dysklyver 20:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more notable ones as well as the summary are in the main article. We do not need to document wp:fart sympathy stmts of no lasting significance. These lists serve a function close to the event, allowing for future pare down of reactions as significance and lasting effect of established, without cluttering the main page. The future is now.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it has been factually merged to 2011 Norway attacks already. As the nom says, this article is just a random collection of quotes. The main article's reactions section is much better organized, providing a proper encyclopedic overview of the international response in a prose form. I was editing the main article around the hectic times when the attack occurred, and split off the growing collection of international reactions to keep it from occupying a very sizeable portion of the main article. Reliable information about the actual attack was rather scarce at the time. The main page has since had ample time to develop as an article, and this page's deletion as an independent collection of rather unorganized quotes is well overdue. --hydrox (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per WP:SIZE. Why not just rename this to Reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks and merge out 2011 Norway attacks#Reactions? The main article is ~~over~~ just about 200KB long. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because expanding the problem will not make it any better. The main article's size is irrelevant; it is actually one of the best articles on a modern terror attack that I have seen. Kudos to the editors who dedicated themselves to making it more than a second-rate news piece.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What problem would be expanded though? When articles get too big they are usually split out, in this case the split off information would all be good referenced material. A nice summary can be placed on the main article for the reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. Consists of WP:PRIMARY materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:NOT and WP:LISTN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has really changed since the last two AfDs. This is just an attempt to delete this article under the cover of darkness. This is a legitimate split based on the size of the parent article. This was especially notable given the rarity of an attack of this nature in Norway. Reliable sources, such as the BBC, covered international reactions to the attack. When will Reactions to the September 11 attacks or International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 be nominated? AusLondonder (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9/11 is not the same scale - both in terms of the event itself and in terms of subsequent wars. Reactions to presidential elections might have a chance for deletion - though not all reactions there are always trivial.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder "under the cover of darkness"; what does that even mean? Come on, you are smarter than that to make such a baseless remark. Your WP:OSE arguments are unconvincing but I expected someone would try to invoke them for an AFD like this. 9/11 is on an entirely different scale than this attack, in its impact, response, and methods, while presidential elections are not even remotely similar to a terrorist incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that I meant long after editor interest in the Norway attacks has declined. Given the millions of editors we have, let alone readers, AfD attracts such a tiny amount of user participation. OSE has been used throughout the discussion (and others) to suggest that because other reactions articles have been deleted, this one should as well. The category Category:International reactions is filled with similar long-standing articles and I question if a one-by-one nomination is appropriate. Norway has a very low level of violent crime and this was an exceptional event (prior to the recent increase in terrorism in Europe) which prompted significant and notable reactions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO - such articles which contain mainly boilerplate sympathy reactions (which can be summarized as two lines in the main article as a show of support) - have a good chance of being deleted (as they tend to fail WP:LASTING & WP:PERSISTENCE (beyond a two liner of "everyone sent condolences")). In situations where there are more complex reactions - e.g. International response to Innocence of Muslims protests or International reactions to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present) - and you are covering an actual issue (as opposed to a long list of condolences) - things might be different.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete These international reaction articles are the epitome of non-notable, diplomatic/political routine; the only ones that matter in the long run are the odd ones, and those should be in the main article. The rest is clutter. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Editors are not trying to delete the topic from the encyclopedia, and there is no claim to a partial IAR deletion of just this one article. So this is a content issue outside the scope of AfD and WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating what are you talking about? There are six editors, not including myself, advocating for deletion. Even if they recommended, say a merge, that can and has regularly been handled at AFD. Are you trying to somehow change how AFD has worked for years? Because I doubt you will be successful at this venue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination states, "...this page...gathered quotes...to keep them away from the main article." That is a content concern, whether material should be here or there. Our policy is that any uninvolved editor can close this discussion and move it to the proper venue. Unscintillating (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating no it is part of my argument for WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Besides, you are only selectively quoting my rationale to support a statement that is still puzzling and not in sink with our procedures. And you are still ignoring the six other editors that advocate for deletion. AFD doesn't selectively ignore comments we do not personally like.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have established a history with me of standing strong in defiance of the force of reason. Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.