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. Courcelles 14:00, 30 July 2011 (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)).

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

I'm aware that we have several such articles, but I believe that they are at odds with WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia's job is not to reproduce what are (in such cases) routine and expected statements expressing condolences and condemnation in nearly identical terms. All of these statements can easily be summarized with little loss of relevant information in a paragraph in the main article, perhaps highlighting the more peculiar ones, such as the Libyan statement. Sandstein 11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A paragraph of truly notable reactions will suffice. ~~By the way, the link to this page appears red in the article for some reason.~~ Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Definitely, as you said, the prominent or outstanding ones (such as the Libyan one) should be included in the main article, to illustrate it better; the large number of similar ones should simply be summarized, so as not to clutter the page; perhaps they should go to a separate page, as "a list of items". BTW, there was a very similar suggestion and a discussion regarding the Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden... and now that "useless page" is ridiculously long (to be merged back), with hundreds of references. --95.103.188.193 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of International reactions articles. The reason we have these articles is that the main article becomes too long if we keep International reactions section there. Kavas (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back with 2011 Norway attacks. If the main article becomes too long, I would rather spin out the two attacks separately which are more notable and significant than the international reactions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. And just per common sense; most of these are not notable. EU, UN, NATO, neighboring countries, maybe English-speaking superpowers. Not Chile, Singapore or Lithuania. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's to say which countries are most important and are notable in term of Norway's relations? You may as well keep all of it or take out all the countries except supernational bodies.YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Classic case of WP:BIAS right here. I can't believe someone would say the views of other countries expressed in reliable sources are unimportant. Silver seren^C 22:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a reaction list within the article of the event is only drawing attention away from main news story. Whilst a reaction section may be repetitive it is notable and rewriting it into a paragraphed format in the main article is not helping the section's repetitive nature. YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NOTPAPER. The section was spun off from the main article to accomodate the international reactions. The text is very well referenced. It is problematic to mention some of the reactions and redact some, because all are surely valueable. --hydrox (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well referenced article which is growing speedily and is informative and useful. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; when this terrible incident is no longer a topical news story, start a centralised debate about whether such lists, in general, are appropriate for Wikipedia (either stand-alone or as sections of main articles), belong elsewhere (Wikinews; Wikisource) or should be done away with altogether. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm afraid this is a snowball; there's too much precedence with these kind of sections/articles. I'm really just glad it's not cluttering up the main article. Lampman (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's well referenced and I'd rather have this on a seperate page than just wasting space on the main article. --Veyneru (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen lots of "international reactions" articles come up for deletion before, and the extent to which they were useful has varied depending on the event. In this case, there was no variation of opinion among the countries as to their reaction -- they all expressed condolences. And no countries are listed as having sent money or supplies or relief workers, because this wasn't the kind of disaster that required such aid. I just don't see a need for this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it becomes merged with the 2011 Norway Attacks article that particular article will be too long. Its better to have it as a separate page. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to 2011 Norway attacks.82.27.19.246 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Merge at the moment, without prejudice towards spinning it off again in the future. Have the reactions themselves received coverage? At this point I don't see the need for a separate article, but there may be eventually if such coverage emerges. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Metropolitan90 brings up valid points though I do not think it should be deleted but rather merged with the 2011 Oslo attacks article. If there are way too many "extended condolences", then we should just keep it brief and mention that X number of governments have expressed condolences and such. - Fedayee (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge - This article is pretty pointless; no information can be gleamed from it, other than the fact that people throughout the world feel that shooting sprees are bad. Are we going to also start an article called International opinions on water's wetness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.145.120 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - The list is only likely to grow, as is the main article. International reactions to major terrorist attacks are certainly notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and if the list is merged into the main article that will greatly increase its length and decrease its navigability/readability. -Helvetica (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Death of Osama bin Laden is a good illustration of how the massive response to an important recent event can be better managed in separate articles that are later pared down in hindsight. Deleting this content would make it impossible to merge it later. causa sui (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per some very good arguments above. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 17:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced, notability well-established. It's not up to us to decide whether the news is spectacular enough. This should be based on whether RS cover it. Leifern (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Retaining only the "outstanding" responses, as some have said, is problematic. Who decides which responses are outstanding? WP:PAPER, and this is a much better place to keep the responses than cluttering up the main article. Bart133 ^{t c @} 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ridiculous to delete. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redundant list of "condolences" adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the project. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent page. Orderinchaos 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They do not fall under NOTNEWS, they fall under WP:SPLIT, as they are too long to include in the main article. Thus, they were split onto their own page. This is a common practice and responses from various world government is encyclopedia and important in a number of ways (International climes, relationships between countries, reactions to reasons behind event, terrorism in this case). Silver seren^C 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge does not merit a separate article. Perhaps if it becomes more important. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silver seren. The information is still incoming and such articles would be incomplete without decent coverage of international reaction. Brandmeister t 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with its parent article per User:Orderinchaos. Kiddie Techie (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since all this condoling minutiae seems somehow important to some editors, at least it is better off being quarantined here rather than cluttering the main article. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the future option to merge. This article preserves and presents content that is currently pertinent and appropriate. Once the news and reactions to this incident have developed and become clear, the context will be established to decide which of this information is actually important to understanding the event and its aftermath, so that it can be merged back into the main article. If we delete now, that information will not only be hid from current readers, but from future editors who will be able to judiciously use that information.
Speedy Keep - precedent says "international reaction" articles are mostly kept if they are legitimate forks from articles that have become to big to include a full scope of the sources and reactions. Merge back to article is impractical, as it was forked out for a reason. Nominator needs to read WP:SPINOFF.--Cerejota (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per `causa sui'. LiteralKa (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It magtters not only how a country reacts, but who actualy reacts. It sends a political message. Keep it for ever, please. User: Coquimbano. 05:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coquimbano (talk • contribs)
Keep for now, reevaluate later when the dust have settled down. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge depending on whether the main article becomes too long for reading. A international reactions page listing the countries'/organizations' reactions separately is a must to ensure a Neutral POV rendering to the reactions section, which is highly unlikely if we editors paraphrase it into prose format. Batram (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It is not the purpose of an encyclopædia to list a redundant and repetitive litany of condolences. The event itself is notable and deeply sad, but the list of reactions contributes nothing to Wikipedia. An encyclopædia is not a book of condolences or symapathy card to the shocked and stricken people of Norway. It is sufficient to state in the main article that many international reactions were supportive, and condolences were widely expressed. What more need one say about it? If a country said something that was geopolitically or diplomatically unusual or notable, that could be documented, but these international expressions are not notable enough in themselves to qualify for encyclopædic inclusion. The proposer is correct to say that these condolences are routine, expected, and nearly identical — that is to say: non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is an historic event, especially for Norway but also internationally. The information on this page is too long to include on the main page, so this page should be kept instead. Michael5046 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While "the information on this page is too long to include on the main page", it does not deserve its own article. It is sufficient to say that the international community offered condolences and support. An encyclopædia requires no further elaboration. — O'Dea (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would this be acceptable content at Wikiquote? If so we should probably transwiki it there. 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the expressions of condolence are pro-forma and non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. Many articles of this kind exist on Wikipedia so why delete this one? Also it's funny how these articles became separate because people were trying to delete that content so finally consensus was reached to split that content into separate articles and now we see merge, merge, merge here.--Avala (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avala, as the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists policy says, "other stuff exists" is not a strong argument. There is no reason to suppose that any of the other, similar reaction article should exist either. They are all the same. Wikipedia policy ought to discourage them because of their non-notability. Also, the merge suggestion is not that all of this should be re-incorporated back into the main article, rather, this article should be summarized in the main article something like this, "The leaders of many countries expressed their condolences." That is all this article conveys, anyway, at unnecessary and repetitive length. — O'Dea (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its been common policy to have a "reactions to current events in the last few months, though perhaps its should include domestic as well as international reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman5685 (talk • contribs)

There is no such policy. — O'Dea (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? *Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak, International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war, International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Seems like enough precedents to me. Though perhaps "international" should be used and domestic added. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent does not equal policy. AIRcorn (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main article says, "The European Union, NATO and governments around the world expressed their condemnation of the attack, condolences, and solidarity with Norway." That is all anyone needs to know. This "International reactions" is unnecessary when that sentence sums it up so usefully in the main article. All else is repetitive, redundant, and non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, at best trim and merge. International reactions of sympathy to major tragedies are diplomatically pro forma, and don't merit an article. I'm struck by the distinction between this, essentially a list of condolences, and a true article [1]. And the capacity that Wikipedia has for unintended satire is evidenced by the inclusion of one foreign leader who tweeted his condolences. Still, given the article's length and copious sourcing I anticipate this will be kept--we could do worse, and often do. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, nothing really unique about these reactions to justify another article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Speaking of spin-offs, anyone want to weigh in on this one [2]? Once the doors open.... 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: International reactions is an important section for an incident, so it should not be deleted. If it is merged to the parent article, it will make the parent article more complex. Therefore, the best choice is to keep.--Coekon (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopaedic collection of sweet nothings, rhetorical soundbytes and quotefarm best summarised on the principal article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some here want to keep it, saying they like it but haven't given any substantive encyclopaedic reason. The existence of other similar articles may only demonstrate that other stuff exists. Here's something I posted earlier elsewhere which is equally applicable to this article:
Don't you get a sense of déjà vu as you are working down those comments, and then fail to remember precisely who said what, because they are all so darn similar? Actually, I feel the best solution to this 'lack of substance' is to summarise. Then we give all the information, without boring the reader, and without needing to consider which country'e views needs to be given greater weight. You may have noticed that I had left a sentence dedicated to the Pakistani response, which is quite notable due to the historical tensions. The others are marginally so, and could easily be grouped. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting, informative, well put together. Where else can we find such an exhaustive list? If I was interested in reading it, I'm assuming others would too; net benefit for Wikipedia to keep. -- œ ^™ 23:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I came to this article to read about the subject, so it had my interest. It is too expansive for the main article and has plenty of merit on its own. Manning (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the notability of the main article, and thus is potentially large size, there's not enough room in the main article to include every country's views.Wheatsing (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In addition to my 'keep' above, I'd also like to point out that there are similar pages for international reactions to previous attacks: Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Response to the 2005 London bombings, Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Michael5046 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
For the three articles above, you need to read them to appreciate that they are substantially different in qualitative terms. Only the London article has an oversized section like the one here, but they all have a more encyclopaedic focus. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Got bored of reading them after the first 5 or 6. Not of interest to English speakers, let the Norwegian Wikipedia cover it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmm, I'm an English speaker, and I found it very interesting, which refutes your argument. I suspect it is generally unwise to attempt to speak for the entire English-speaking world in your comments. Manning (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speak for yourself. Just because you have no interest doesn't reflect the general consensus of English speakers. Most other Wikipedia are tend to be a direct translation from the English Wikipedia anyways. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarise the important points and merge. We are an encyclopedia not a directory or memorial site. The list is over detailed. This may be an appropriate level of coverage - while even this may be too much. The article as it stands is not doing a service to our readers, as it is not sifting through the material and picking out the important points - it is expecting our readers to work through a very long list of quotes and data which at around 4,000 words would take an average reader around 20-30 minutes to read, which is too long for the importance of the material. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the attacks have resulted in worldwide reactions in a lot of countries. I think the reactions together are notable enough for a separate article, and a lot of things have been said from presidents, prime ministers etc. Hey Mid (contribs) 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing notable about these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to explain that if you want your !vote to carry more weight. Hey Mid (contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a database or list of quotes, most of which are identical, not really an article. In any case, it's not notable. Are there any sources that describe the reaction in detail? I suspect not because there really is nothing to say. Comparisons with other "response" articles, contrary to keep voters, only reinforce my point, because things actually happened with sources to document it. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very important article on the international reactions for this event. numerous similar articles so no precedent for non-inclusion of this kind of articles either.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge data like this is best covered in context of the incident itself and in WP:DUE weight. Don't need to put unnecessary weight on all the punditry and various POVs. Dzlife (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of quotes that say basically the same thing. The list adds nothing beyond what the first sentence in the lead says and that is already in the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the alleged killer alleges that the reaction was a key motivation, this is important. I suggest expanding to include the reaction of European far-right organizations (which are more varied and nuanced than that of national politicians). Merging back into the main article would make it too long and cumbersome. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major European event as evident by the number of European government statements and reponses. If we mrged it it would take up too much space. Definitely keep. Pass a Method talk 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently it's just a quotefarm, but when analysis is made - especially of the timing of Middle East responses, many made only after the perp was known not to be of Middle Eastern origin - it may be a quite informative article. Right now, the article - devoid of analysis - is about as informative as "water is wet"; but we judge articles not as they are but as they optimally could be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a massive event for Norway, which usually never suffers from this type of incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.88.31 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. NorthernThunder (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (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.