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 arguments here were between the policy on not being an indiscriminate collection of information and our guidelines for spinning off separate articles and continuing coverage for notability. While the arguments for deletion were policy based, a consensus did not emerge in this conversation that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information, and a consensus did emerge that it is currently viewed as a valid spinoff article that has received continued coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting

[edit]
International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another list of condolences and condemnation. As with other quote farms that have been nominated and deleted, I argue that is not an indiscriminate directory of information and synthing several quotes is in no way encyclopedic. Considering the parent article sufficiently summarizes what this lists says over and over, the purpose for this page has run out awhile ago. Certainly, it has already served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page while the event was regularly in the news. And with certainty, I can say the incident is without a doubt notable but remember we are not discussing the shooting itself; anything associated with it is not inherently notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact other articles have separately been found to not warrant inclusion is not grounds for why this article does not warrant inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90's first comment, which mistakes the nature of my comment, asks by implication if my original comment is "suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks", to which I can only say that although I did not write it to that effect (obviously!), I am not too worried if you take it that way, since that is possibly relevant (especially so if thats what you thought after reading it).
The essay was linked as a neutral source of information, I don't see how "you may want to see WP:Reactions to... articles as well." equates to thinking it was policy. Its main relevance is the amount of related information it includes.
The issue of all the African leaders using the same statement is a matter for article cleanup, you know as well as I do that there was massive and varied response both at the time and subsequently from many people, organisations, police forces, and leaders, much of which has not been expanded on to its full potential in this article.
It was the BBC news channel, I can't remember which day, but it was recent, and they were talking about peoples reactions to the Charlie Hebdo event, they had some people on talking about it, they said about how tragic it was and talked about the victims families and such. This influences my personal opinion as to the enduring relevance of recording what was said, this encyclopedia is after all supposed to be the sum of all relevant knowledge.
To answer gracefulslick, I was at first supportive of the general idea, on the premise nothing was being lost as it was unnecessary to have an extra article when the content was in the main one etc etc, all very convincing arguments. However I have come to the opinion that trying to merge these things back into articles which are already to long is not helpful and doesn't work, sure you can say "all the worlds leaders were very upset and expressed condolences for the victims" but that does not give the depth of knowledge that can be shown in a separate article. In the instances where these articles have been deleted, the knowledge has been effectively lost, along with any chance of meaningful expansion. Additionally I have realised that a "Reactions to..." article can actually be expanded beyond a list. It has happened, there are some already, therefore this should be treated as more of a stub framework than a representation of a finished dead-end article of insufficient quality for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
I have realised it is not necessary to cite some WP:THING every time I express my opinion, I can see people have already discussed the guidelines in this discussion, and in many other similar discussions and piling on and parroting is pointless, this is not a vote. It is far more effective in this case to point people to an essay with plenty of information, people can make an informed decision without me having to type it all in here, it even links to many other AfD's, I am aware that precedent is not binding, but given that the nominator and other editors seek to influence the outcome of this AfD with a misstatement on the way past AfD's have resulted it is only fair to direct editors to a more neutral standpoint.
The so called policies (they are actually guidelines) are neither defined nor binding, and are written in a way which can mean almost anything, so editors are literally split down the middle on the meaning of even the most basic concepts. What actually matters is common sense and building a good encyclopedia, and I would highly recommend everyone to always think of WP:5P when considering what these guidelines are actually for. I have pointed out why I think what I think, expressed some possibly useful points, and that is plenty, there are others here actively arguing precedent and policy, claiming 'quote farms' violate this and that, without any obvious grounding in reality or even the common understanding of policy. Dysklyver 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second this comment. 9/11 had a massive body count and triggered the War on Terror, United States invasion of Afghanistan, and quite arguably 2003 invasion of Iraq. Charlie Hebdo was a significant terror attack, led to Je suis Charlie (a long enough article in itself! A reaction we should note), and international condemnations a bit out of the norm (more than usual outpouring of sympathy, some degree of Muslim nation ambivalence due to cartoons of Mohammed etc.). However in the grand scheme of things - there it was one in a chain - and didn't lead to any significant development (yes - France heightened security yes again. Yes - there was also an attack on cartoon drawing in Texas (however there were also attacks prior to Hebdo)). We already have quite a long and comprehensive reaction section in the main article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb can you consider Knowledgekid's !vote for a redirect? The target containd actual notable reactions, not just routine grief statements repeated a dozen times and easily summarized in a brief paragraph. It certainly would address the issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheGracefulSlick I've seen it but strongly disagree. One article is for the popular response, the other for the formal response. Both are legitimate spinouts. As I pointed out below both have been proposed for deletion with little support. A simplified look at the more complex relations between the three articles: the fact that Charlie Hebdo attack was immediately perceived to be an important massacre (and a crossroads for the freedom of press, arts, and speech) brought wide popular reactions, strengthening again the importance of the Charlie Hebdo attack. As it came to be seen as such a major event the formal response gained in enduring importance just as well. gidonb (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to an obvious extent in English sources in countries that are less connected to the incident. But the reactions in Germany, the US, Russia, Britain, Canada, Australia, Syria, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, etc etc are still getting continued coverage and having lasting impact, and you could be sure that if there was a terror attack in Greece, the Greek response to this Charlie Hebdo incident would be back in the news. It is worth noting a certain amount of cleanup could be relevant to this article, I don't think most the responses from Africa are relevant, and there aren’t enough US and European responses, nor as much as I would like to see written about them. Dysklyver 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair - that nom was made on the day of the attack itself before it was clear the slogan would be as notable as it has become - and was closed as a snow keep after it became clear (it actually had some editor support on 7 Jan, but in the following days it was all keep). However, whereas Je suis Charlie has lasting notability (and definitely will be discussed in the future in conjunction with the attack and in relation to other shows of sympathy to other attacks) - the boiler plate condemnations of random foreign ministers/word leaders really do not seem to be covered more than month after the event - these are all collapsed in subsequent coverage to "condemned by almost all world leaders", with notable exceptions noted.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 7 November 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.
More