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 No consensus after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing[edit]

Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (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)

Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. These quotes, which basically say "I condemn this attack and I offer my sincere condolences", from world leaders or notable figures, are not connected in any way other than by the incident. However, notability is not inherited, and there is no encyclopedic value in keeping a list of quotes that are already sufficiently summarized in the main article itself. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. This page supports content on the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing article. If you feel inclined, it should be merged with the main article. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 03:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Supports the main article? What does that even mean Tetizeraz? There is nothing encyclopedic about a list of quotes pretty much repeating each other. Here is a fragment of the main article: "The bombing was condemned and condolences were offered by the leaders and spokespeople of many countries". It summarized dozens of these quotes effectively in one sentence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These reactions, made by the embassies of many countries, are pretty common. That's why I'm suggesting that it should, after the very least, be merged with the main article about the bombings. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 04:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on 2016 Lahore bombing. Vorbee (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2016 Lahore suicide bombing and likely reduce content. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Vorbee and Power~enwiki can you specify what you both would like to see merged? Pakistan's reaction is already noted in the main article and the world's condolences are sufficiently summarized as well. What remains useful from this list of quotes saying essentially the same thing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the main article already contains a section on the reactions: 2016_Lahore_suicide_bombing#Reactions, which is sufficient. There are no incoming links apart from the main article, so no need to keep a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. There is no need for a separate article just for this. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per precedence. Articles like this are common for e.g. Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack - Mfarazbaig (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mfarazbaig read WP:OSE. Just because there is a precedent for doing something wrong (the reaction articles or, more accurately, quote farms) does not mean we cannot start fixing it in accordance with the policies I outlined.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For those who wish to merge, it would be so much more helpful if you describe what you want merged. However, in total honesty, a merge is both clumsy and unnecessary. Granted, if the main article did not have a section devoted to the response of this incident, then merging makes a little sense but that is not the case here. I hope the closer notices that in their decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - TheGracefulSlick, how about you start nominating the reaction articles of terror attacks in West too, to avoid WP:BIAS. Also, the main article did have a reaction section. See here - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mfarazbaig WP:AGF. I am not going to recklessly begin mass nominating reaction articles for deletion without analyzing them. Not all of them are quote farms like this one. Some of them actually are useful and devoid of WP:SYNTH because they are much more than a condolences page. The fact the main article had a reaction section with quotes saying essentially the exact same thing isn't really a sound argument so I do not know how you want me to address that other than by saying it was justly removed for the same reasons I nominated this "article" (quote farm).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'm inclined to say this should be merged into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, but merging every single item would be contrary to WP:UNDUE. The problem is, I don't see any good way to decide which particular items are the most significant, so maybe just leaving this as a separate article is the best thing, and a selective merge would be my next choice. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith you can easily express what you want merged here. It would make it so much easier for me and the closing admin. I do not know anything useful from this quote farm since the main article summarizes it very efficiently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a fair question. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer. To start with, I'm opposed to turning Wikipedia into a newspaper, reporting on current events. But, we seem to be way past that point already, so that's a lost cause. So, given that we're doing this, collecting quotes doesn't seem unreasonable. If it were just a few quotes, it would make sense to in-line them into the article. Since it's so many, in-lining them seems to me like it would be a distraction from the main subject of the article. And, to address your specific question, I don't have a good way to decide which are worth in-lining and which are not. So, that sort of backs me into thinking we should just keep it as a stand-alone list. I recognize that this isn't a particularly good argument, so I've amended my initial comment to weak keep. I hope this reply was useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quote farm with no importance, notability, or encyclopedic value of repetitive condolences. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The precedent and consensus has been in favour of keeping these articles for major terrorist incidents. We should have a consistent approach project-wide. AusLondonder (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @AusLondonder:, I agree, we should be consistent...but only with following policy. Which policy are you referring to in order to support keeping this quote farm? Indeed, there is a precedent to keep these "articles", simply to avoid the initial clutter when the actual article is fresh. However, doing something wrong several times, creating this "precedent", is not an actual rationale. Regardless, this incident is over a year old and traffic on the page has cleared up significantly. Nothing here has any encyclopedic substance or material not already appropriately explained in the main page. We should be creating a new refreshing precedent: adhereing to policy; in this case, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABILITY.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to the main article: 2016_Lahore_suicide_bombing#Reactions. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. For example, the info about the hash tag might be interesting, while such generic statements as The Government expressed strong condemnation of the terrorist attack and supported the Pakistani Government's efforts at fighting terrorism are not. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Precedent has indeed been to keep these kind of articles. This one is also well sourced and the reactions are of value. The precedent trumps here.BabbaQ (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is not policy, and you are well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's embarrassing that an article simply having sources in it means it should remain an article indefinitely—there are references for individual quotes but none discuss the topic of reactions as a whole! Reywas92^Talk 06:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this seems a remarkable pointless split from a page that could easily include this information, I find myself agreeing with the noms comments on this regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I see no reason to exhaustively list every reaction to an event. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:32, 11 September 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.