- 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. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Traintalk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A Train It was my mistake so sorry for that. I struck out because he got blocked for sock puppetry. Greenbörg (talk) 10:20, 18 October 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)
I am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The consensus was to delete -- "clearly" as the closer described it. I realize using other stuff is mostly frowned upon (and rightly so) but this negates editor opinion that there is "precedent" to keep these quote farms. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and loosely synthing routine reactions that weren't important enough for the actual article doesn't change that. I do not advocate for a merge because the article on the attack summarizes the world's condolences in an orderly manner. Really, there is no policy based reason to keep this: notability isn't inherited to the attack and individual reactions must be judged individually so WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not much to write about with limited sources. This is clearly a WP:QUOTEFARM and as per precedent set by recent discussion this is not much valuable on WP now. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Merge (selectively, the more notable ones) into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. These "reactions" articles serve a purpose in "current event mode" (this directs the "reaction" news flow off of the main article) or in the case of truly mega events (which can have very large articles, in which case sub-articles make sense). In this case, the main article isn't very long (18K bytes) - and there is no need for a separate "reactions" article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like the most significant reactions are in the main article in any event - so I'm striking the merge vote, though it might be possible to selectively merge a few additional bits.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep & WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - The previous AfD was closed just a month ago. What happened at AfD for other article has no business here. This easily passes WP:GNG. See: CBC News, Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, Catholic Herald, Daily Bruin, DAWN, Metro News, PCP. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mfarazbaig how do seperate reactions pass GNG; they must all be judge, well, separately. Anyways, my rationale quite thoroughly explains why these quote farms are not for the encyclopedia. I realize you are part of the Pakistan WikiProject but you must handle this case objectively. And please understand no rational admin will close this prematurely simply because you don't like the nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ====Advice on renominating====
When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.
Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.
|
- Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unscintillating be warned, casting aspersions is just as disruptive as any illusionary scenario where I am supposedly trying to game any system. "Precedence" was the main point, as non-policy based as it is, by keep voters in the previous discussion. If you read my re-nomination statement, I address this and more -- quite thoroughly. This "advice" was not even marginally relevant to me, and I'm sorry but your comments at AFD have been head-scatchers as of late.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:31, 16 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.