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. Myriad diverse opinions and outcomes for this article have been presented and discussed herein. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Various aspects of this article and its content, including the notion of a potential merge, which has been a significant aspect of this discussion, can continue to be discussed on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting[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)).

Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub 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)

As with nearly all "Reactions to FOOBAR" articles, this article is WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a place for a collection of quotes (wikiquote is for that) (WP:QUOTEFARM). It is also WP:NOTNEWS, specifically "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."

We have no indication that (1) immediate reactions have lasting notability and (2) any notable actions or comments cannot be included on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. General reactions such as lighting buildings in rainbow colors can be summarized on the event's article (and already is at 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Reactions). Specific extremely notable quotes that have enduring notability can also be included there. Should there be enough enduring notable reactions (e.g. memorial scholarships, museums, stamps, holidays, events, etc.), this article would be appropriate. Until then, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Leave the quotes and reactions for Wikiquote and Wikinews for now.

Propose article be deleted and and notable content not already included on 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Reactions be merged there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These articles, whilst contentious, have majority community support, as evidenced by being routinely kept at AfD. There is no reason this incident is different. This is the deadliest terrorist incident in the US since 2001, deadliest mass-shooting on record and the deadliest attack on LGBT people in modern times The reactions are notable. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. It states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events"AusLondonder (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Reactions to the death of Prince is an example of an article like this being deleted and merged. There was also a discussion on this generally at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_127#Proposal_to_do_away_with_including_world_leader_responses_to_terrorist_incidents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That ended as a dead end no consensus argument. Every article is different, this one has the potential given the size of the scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir To suggest the death of a popstar and the worst violence perpetrated against LGBT people in modern times is in any way comparable is grossly offensive and wholly misleading. Very few reaction articles relating to major terrorist attacks have been deleted. That proposal you talk of is archived and went nowhere as you well know. AusLondonder (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: No offense intended of course. Perhaps I'm too jaded and see the platitudes given by politicians in both cases as having the same root intention? The discussion was archived, but the closing summary indicates general(ish) support for the idea that many are TOOSOON. I don't wish to bludgeon and I respect your opinion on the matter. I just feel differently and wished to initiate discussion to see if others agreed or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to an attack in which a large number of people were killed - and which is historically noteworthy for other reasons - are not fully comparable to reactions to the death of an individual person. So I don't think the Prince comparison is a good one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fair enough point, FreeKnowledgeCreator. AusLondonder commented just a moment ago about perceptions and motive. I want to make it clear I think 90% of reactions to mass killings pages should be similarly deleted, but at this point it would be disruptive, POINTy, and down-right asshole-ish of me to go nominate them. Sandy Hook and Columbine would be some of the exceptions as the reactions to them have had lasting notability. As for how others will see this, I count myself in the LGBTQ community and if the insinuation is that this AfD is motivated by anti-queer animus, that is entirely incorrect. I'm trying to assume the best faith in Aus' comment, and perhaps they are right that some will vote on this differently because of the context of the event... but I want to may my position clear. Again, I do not begrudge anyone who disagrees with me on this; we all have different orientations toward what should and should not be on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge as proposed For all the reasons expressed by the nominator. General Ization ^Talk 21:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge if warranted Agree with others above. This article should be deleted and anything pertinent (i.e. beyond organization/person X issued statement) be merged with 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Reactions - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks & Category:International reactions. If the article is too lengthy, shorten it. --SI 21:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the reactions to the shooting are an important key to understand which countries fully ignored the tragic event! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.205.237 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is a name em and if they can't be named shame em tool? Drmies (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, impact to reputation has long been disregarded when considering inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Sumstream (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, given past precedent on how reactions to events were handled on Wikipedia in the past. (Iuio (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep There is nothing stopping ANYONE from broadening the scope of the article. How many AfDs have we had so far with the same reasoning for deletion put forward but it be kept due to notability in the end? The reactions meet WP:GNG, and thus this is a valid stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally keep hoping people will wisen up and that any consensus in favor of these articles will change when people realize that the boilerplate statements that make up the majority of these articles aren't encyclopedic, and that only the reactions of true significance matter, and those all fit in the main article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but do not merge - Technically, the subject is notable, but it's not really encyclopedic content per WP:NOT. If the article is deleted, it will be because it's undesirable material, not because it's not notable. For that reason, a merge would be inappropriate. - MrX 21:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the important ones can be in the parent article. The unimportant ones are WP:NOT going to pass the WP:10YT Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is largely people talking about their own feelings in a way that's not vetted by an editorial process. It is a strange kin to advertising, actually, not quite advertising, but not actually informing the readers of anything of value. I find this to be a valid argument for exclusion under WP:NOTPROMO #4. (No objection, however, to a summary at the main article, nor to the sorts of counterexamples mentioned by the nominator. It's the "Hey, I want to get my name in the paper as saying shooting 50 people is bad." ticklist that I find non-encyclopedic.) Also, this doesn't appear to meet WP:LISTN. --joe decker^talk 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. As tragic as events like the Orlando shoot are, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not some form of social networking service designed to memorialize the fallen or collect offers of sympathy to their loved ones. The list also has a serious risk for undue weight as most of the reaction was made before emergency responders even had a chance to remove the bodies, creating a situation where it is pure speculation as to whether any of these reactions will be notable next week, let alone in the years to come. --Allen3 ^talk 23:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. All the important ones can stay in the main article, while the rest are simply superfluous. Parsley Man (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think many people watching this will be concerned as to why this particular reactions article is being treated differently at AfD than other articles which have been kept (and no, I don't mean the celebrity death articles). People will make their own judgements about why that is. AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, if you really believed that editors are capable of making their own assessment as to whether, and why this incident is being treated any differently, you wouldn't have felt the need to leave that snide comment (twice).Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Nothing in this article indicates to me that is necessary to have it split from the main article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• the precedence has been set, why do we have to go over this again and again? Whether you think that this page is notable enough or not; the absolute number of times this has been debated on similar pages clearly states that the community feel these pages are notable. I myself incline slightly to the keep side; although I do feel these pages only just meet the criteria for keeping. Either way it has been decided and while I don't in any way want to stifle this debate it should be had at a broader level rather than posting deletion proposals on every page simply to have the status quo reinstated. If this page isn't noteworthy neither are many others; it seems obvious to me that debating this each time in such isolation is (to coin a rather colourful idiom) pissing in the wind. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Mtaylor848's position. Let's just establish a consistent standard for these types of articles and then work from there. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge Per nom. This kind of article is already bloating into a list of miscellaneous reactions which are best put into the main article. Unless it gains sudden notability - eg starts a geopolitical spat between russia and britain (of course not), I see no reason to give an entire article to the reactions. user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx)))} 00:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These quote farms are a bad idea, and they break policy. From WP:NOTQUOTE: If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Create the page on Wikiquote, and link it from the main article. Wikiquote isn't just for film or television quotations. If there are other articles like this one, nominate them for deletion, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:NOTQUOTE. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jujutsuan: You should read my comment below about WP:POTENTIAL. The article can be expanded, please do not just focus on the current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Keep per WP:POTENTIAL and to help keep main article down to reasonable length. (@Knowledgekid87:) Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge very selectively to the main article. There's really no reason to keep a standalone article that is just a list of the usual political platitudes, almost none of which have any significance of their own. Come on, some of them are reports of tweets. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is in keeping with Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks. We'll always have the wall of platitudes, and Twitter is as good a medium as any other. I attended the second vigil yesterday at the Idaho capital; some 200 people showed up. Should we consign all such vigils to oblivion? kencf0618 (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Request if this really gets deleted, please move a copy to my namespace, thx. --SI 01:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments by Kencf0618. Inevitably, a potentially merged list will get large enough again, and someone will move it into a new article again. -Mardus /talk 01:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What appears to be sorely missing, is criticism towards U.S. Republican legislators who expressed condolences, while their numerous efforts have been to restrict (or slow the expansion of) LGBT rights. -Mardus /talk 01:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Seeking to protect a baker's right not to participate in an event that violates their conscience is not in the same plane of existence as mass murder. Get real. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutsuan If you think that is the extent of Republican hatred for gay people (including defending prison sentences as late as 2003) you need a serious reality check. You also need a reality check if you think baking a cake could ever "violate a conscience". It's not about conscience. People in the UK, France, Germany, Ireland have consciences and these disputes only ever happen in the US. It's about conservative politics. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to get into a comment argument like this is FB or something. Enjoy your delusions. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutsuan If you don't want to be challenged then don't get on your soapbox with your hateful and fanatical views in the first place. Your comments are trolling and deliberately provocative and have no place at this AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. You don't know what my views are besides the tiniest shred that you can glean from my comments. You don't know the difference between my political ideology and my morality. So stop the personal attacks on me. The shooter was hateful and fanatical. Bakers with a conscience formed contrary to yours regarding cakes isn't. Grow up. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 03:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican politicians have been called out for their hypocrisy both for their 'thoughts and prayers' to the victims, whose everyday lives the said legislators have continually been making difficult; and for the fact, that lawmakers from that party have blocked legislation that would have curtailed the sales of assault weapons (especially AR-15). This doesn't mean, as if the Republicans should not have expressed support for the victims; it's that there is a deficiency of forward-looking statements on their part about improving LGBT rights, or at the very least making gun laws stricter. Therefore, the criticism of Republicans is rightful, since their condolences are thought not to be heartfelt in the way they have reacted. btw, "Grow up" right above could also be interpreted as a personal attack. I think this discussion should be in the actual talk page of the article. -Mardus /talk 14:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The actions of people with authority in the disaster management (local, state and federal government) are in the main article's reactions section. This has become a bad trend that we have all of these articles with lists of copy/pasted one-size-fits-all condolences written on Twitter by Foreign Secretaries of unrelated countries. As I've said in a million such deletion discussions, reactions should preferably be limited things with a real-world impact. Has any foreign country taken emergency security measures? Is any country offering aid? '''tAD''' (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For those who cite WP:QUOTE correct me if im wrong but isn't this article called "Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting"? As in where is the Islamic response? Where is the public response? Where are the first responders/police reactions? Why aren't some of the more lengthy details out there being put into prose? Is there a reason to believe that this article cant expand its way like this article had Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks? Yes other stuff exists, but some of you are thinking so narrow minded its just ridiculous. I encourage some here to read WP:POTENTIAL, when it comes to articles in their current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep: Attack is unique as largest shooting in United States history. The reactions article is essential to maintaining the main article about the shooting at a reasonable length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 June 2016
• Delete – No idea what makes all these endless reactions notable. Reactions should be held to just a few key people and entities. What is to be gained by having this whole page of useless quotes? This "flag-collecting" (as others have called it) is getting way out of hand. United States Man (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, lean towards keep and trim down. There needs to be some overflow for content that doesn't fit in the main article. -- Callinus (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. "Wikipedia is not an online memorial" and WP:QUOTEFARM. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge - Especially because very extreme negative reactions from anti-LGTB are left out... See http://thoughtcatalog.com/jacob-geers/2016/06/here-are-all-the-people-applauding-the-orlando-gay-club-shooter/ This cannot be ignored for the sake of a memorial. Dongiello (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dongiello: The current state of an article is not grounds for deletion per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and selective merge. Relevant, encyclopedic material may go in the main article (and I have no objection to a fairly lengthy "reactions" section, if well-cited and comprehensive). What shouldn't go in the main article is a lengthy list of quotes from foreign ministers, etc., which constitutes a QUOTEFARM. Neutrality^talk 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and everything like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reactions are already in the main article, and a separate article with more of them does not warrant keeping. TJD2 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge anything worthwhile that's not already in the main article. I haven't even read the page because the title shows it's just the latest in a pointless series of "Reactions to ..." every western tragedy of recent times. Full of pretty little flags and totally predictable condolences/condemnation. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best start to a deletion rationale "I haven't even read it" AusLondonder (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have skimmed it now, and it's exactly as I feared. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks, see also International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, International reactions to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present), International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–09), Opposition to the Iraq War, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.User200 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 June 2016
• Delete and very selectively merge any notable, useful, and appropriate content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete These "reactions to" articles are always full of cruft boiler plate statements of "thoughts and prayers" that are not encyclopedic. They have been farmed off of the main page of the event but editors create a WP:CONTENTFORK to keep the content on Wikipedia due to WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why does Paris, Madrid, London, Brussels, and even the 4 death March 2016 Istanbul bombing get one but not Orlando? This article like the others mentioned are meant to be more specific in their content and prevent the main page of the attack from becoming bloated.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per AusLondonder and ShadowDragon343.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are plenty other articles with the same topic of reaction to major terrorist event and this one is one of the most major in the last decades. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I came to the page thinking delete, but was persuaded. Partly because the scale and dual nature (anti-gay & Islamist) nature of the attack makes the reaction both larger and more complex than many otherwise similar events. And partly because we already have secondary sourcing, for example, here: [1] an article comparing the responses of various comedians/news commentators and awarding the palm to Samantha Bee, and in multiple media outlets today comparing the Trump and Clinton responses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even the nominator thinks that some of the material should be merged. Fine, so do that, and redirect the title, maintaining the article history as with any normal merge. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through normal editing actions and talk page discussion. There's no need to bring it to AfD. Cmeiqnj (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete opening with "Muslim reactions" gives value-bias to notions of collective responsibility and makes the entire article unsalvageable LavaBaron (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Keep Merge it if you want, but reactions to the largest mass shooting in US history are clearly notable, given the sources provided. Steven Walling • talk 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the statement of the prime minister of Andorra (and dozens of others) "clearly notable"? How? Please explain. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Serious issue: Some users have repeatedly manipulated this article to keep it in bad condition, to keep it in a state that is criticised as quotefarm, news, toosoon etc. They have removed relevant informations and improvements from the article and hindered it to be expanded. They're editing on a mission to have this article deleted. This is inacceptable and against the policies. I request that this has to be taken into account by an admin who wants to decide here. --SI 02:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete it Because this has gone on long enough. Reactions from global leaders just seems trashy, Wikipedia is not a tabloid ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Reactions from world leaders and political leaders are very notable in these major events. The article in question is not overly lengthy by itself, but would make the "main" article too long. Balance is called for here, which requires too different articles.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The main reason for having this article is to give us a place to shove all this stuff. If people are willing to collect this data, it's our job to preserve it. I'll admit it's boring, but "boring" is not a good reason to delete an article. And in truth, there are many political tie-ins that will be of long term importance that we should track back to here (think of how many articles about truly awful pieces of legislation should have links to this article!). The quibbling about how many quotes to include is a content matter that has zero relevance to notability guidelines. Wnt (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying this article is just a dumping ground for all the junk that we "can't" delete? Well, it shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Anything which appears to be of long-term importance is notable enough to be in the main article; the rest does not belong anywhere. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if you don't look at just the quoted information. The main article is approaching 90k so per WP:SIZE it is perfectly reasonable to have sub articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really think an encyclopedia can have four million articles and none of them be dull to most of us? It's an encyclopedia. Obviously somebody cares deeply what various sources say about the attack, or the information would never have been added. So good for them! What significance the information has is enduring - at some point ten years from now, are people going to remember whether Putin expressed sympathy or gloated over the dead gays? Will people remember if the Pope gave a statement condemning anti-gay hatred or merely said that murder is wrong? So if they care, they'll come to Wikipedia and look it up. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the simple practical reason that it helps focus the main page and does no harm as a record of significant reactions. Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I've read through this discussion and the archived one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks, I encourage any participating here who haven't to do so. I can't see any reason how or why this article's discussion would or should end up differently. Information being boring, or repetitive, does not reduce its notability, and there is a well established routine in these reaction pages that have survived, such as in the terrorist attack reaction category, or isolated examples like with Charlie Hebdo. In the same way where in the Paris attack discussion there was commentary along the lines of "Of course this gets less attention and respect, it happened outside of the US!" I would similarly lament people here feeling justified in statements like "This is being judged more harshly because it's about Gays, or because Orlando is not a big city like New York or the many national capitals that allow for their attack reaction articles to survive, Moscow, Madrid, London, Brussels, Istanbul, Paris, despite many of them having far fewer lives lost." Finally, I can easily imagine the academic and scholastic value in being able to compare, "How did Country X respond to these dozen very different attacks? What characteristics bring about what nature of reactions internationally?" and with those kinds of topics of research I wouldn't imagine a better initial resource than Wikipedia. Sumstream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I believe this has been discussed countless times before. Wikipedia has reactions to notable events. Some people clearly dont like it, and they keep trying to get rid off it, citing some absurd reason or the other. Sorry, but I have yet to hear a valid reason that doesnt amount to "I don't like it". The opponents tend to describe the section/article as "junk", "garbage", "collection of trash", repetitive, none of which are reasons to remove content from WP. Someone even nominated the reactions to 9/11 article for deletion claiming that the reactions to 9/11 were not notable. Talk about a major understatement! In my opinion, there is no doubt that the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history should have a reactions article. Quite simply, the reaction to an event is important to fully understand the importance and consequence of an event. If 50 people were shot dead in Somalia, the reactions would have been far fewer. FlickrWarrior (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Merge isn't feasible due to the large amount of content, and there is significant precedent for having articles of this nature. It's an event of significant magnitude. And stop with the WP:POINT editing SI mentioned above. If the article needs improving, improve it. Don't willfully stop improvement so it can fulfill your goal of deletion. In any event, AFD is not cleanup so if the article has potential, which it does, it should stay. Smartyllama (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the reactions have generated sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, with sources such as the NYT, CNN, various French and British news outlets. Methinks trying to hold this article to some standard other than WP:GNG may be motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lol. I'm the one who created this article. Didn't expect it to start such a big argument. --96.48.244.69 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page is too long to fit into the main article and it is definitely notable enough. I don't see why this is being considered for deletion. Ghoul flesh (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not much I can say that hasn't already been said by other "keep" !voters, but...I'm not sure why so many seasoned users still don't understand that an articles doesn't have to be deleted before it is merged. I mean, even the nominator stated that s/he thinks the article should be merged, not deleted. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. World leader's reactions to such a historical terrorist attack are always going to be notable and there are a number of other Wikipedia entries in a similar vein (the recent attack on Paris for example). Perhaps trim it down a little as it's turning into a list page. Zerbey (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Like International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008, there is far too much sourced content to be merged into the shooting article. International reaction to the largest peacetime massacre in American history. The TOOSOON train has long since left the station. --Oakshade (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reactions are not notable in and of themselves. Actions are. Are we going to have Reactions article to every single event? And what about Reactions to the Reactions? I think Obama's response to Trump's response got enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article if "it's sourced and an important person said it" is the only rationale, and I'm sure Trump's response to Obama's response to Trump's response is going to generate plenty of coverage too, if it already hasn't. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, we've had these discussions before, and a consensus seemed to be that responses by directly involved persons or organizations were deemed acceptable in the main article. A response by the president of Turkmenistan or the candidates for the Spanish presidency--why? Drmies (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that so few of the responses here in the Reactions page are actually notable that all of them would be able to indefinitely fit on the main shooting page? When there genuinely is enough sourcing, I don't see why the general notability guideline is failed even if the reaction is from a country that is generally more ignored like Turkmenistan or from someone who is still at this stage only a candidate, such as the Spanish candidate(s) or Trump. I feel like your concerns would be most addressed in trimming or otherwise cleaning up, but that it would not be feasible to do so to such a degree that what remains could all be merged into the main article. I don't believe in the rationale or argument of "we must strive to keep as few reactions pages as possible" which does not care about notability or the precedent that has been set by the many reactions pages that have already survived AfD. Sumstream (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel differently. I don't know who you're citing in "we must strive...", but it's not me. The general notability guideline does not pertain to any individual response--that is a serious misunderstanding. The GNG applies to topics; whether an individual response is worth including is a matter of editorial judgment. What's funny is that the topic of "Reactions to ..." is itself not notable, if we take the GNG strictly, since I do not believe there is secondary sourcing that discusses the reactions, though there is secondary sourcing that lists the reactions. BTW, trimming so it fits in the main article, of course that's feasible. What happens with every act of terrorism, though, is that the article quickly balloons to 200k or more, because NOTNEWS is usually deemed irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A serious misunderstanding is "Reactions are not notable in and of themselves. Actions are." A reaction is an action performed in response to a (generally prior) external stimulus, which itself may be another action but may also be a condition or something else. There is a retinue of actions cited as being done specifically in response to the shooting. This is cited in secondary sources. Even tweeting an official statement of response, whether it be grief, condolence, ridicule, or otherwise, is still an action and can still meet notability for inclusion. The topic as a whole, the reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, is obviously notable for the amount of such reactions but also the degree of reaction. For instance one of the most notable such reactions already has a page of its own, Senator_Murphy_gun_control_filibuster, and is quick to cite in the first line that the event happened in reaction to the Orlando shooting. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369 and http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-filibuster-over-gun-control-enters-second-day-n593396 are credible secondary sources discussing and not merely listing how it is a reaction to the Orlando shooting. I can not understand how further notability could be necessary or even established in a way that would be deemed acceptable to you as described if this is not. Sumstream (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding is all yours. A tweet and some words and a press release etc. are not actions, nor are the properly reactions--they are verbal responses, words. The reactions cited in this article are nothing but words. Heartfelt words, well-chosen words, sometimes combative words, sure, but they are not actions. Murphy's filibuster (that this has an article is indicative of how quickly we jump on the news cycle) is an action, and should have a place in the article on the shooting, as do the comments by Clinton, Obama, Trump, and a couple others--maybe the pope. The president of Turkmenistan's response does not need to have a place anywhere. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are again concerns regarding trim and cleanup to the article and not the WP:POTENTIAL of the article regarding AfD which is not based strictly on current status. Please look to Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, which obviously does not contain EVERY single possible quoted reaction that shows up in a secondary source. It has had a lot of time to be carefully maintained. I intend to voice "Delete and Merge" whenever Murphy's filibuster article gets its own AfD, but I'm not rushing because the article that I expect the full relevant and notable contents of that event to be on is this, the reactions page. Exactly which statements and other events constitute the total inclusion scope of the article should be more slowly and carefully weighed out over time and is obviously beyond the scope of this AfD. Sumstream (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I note that the current consensus on the shooting talk page does not support merging most materials here (RFC is supporting summary form and only from specific, involved politicians with regards to certain statements). As merge goes against that consensus, this should only close on keep or delete. Since this is a significant incident regarding United States and affects multiple sensitive issues in an election year, I think this page is necessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are a lot of different talk page threads about keeping this or that from the reactions (what does the Westboro Baptist Church say?) and my response is always going to be "stuff it in the sub-article!" I think we can keep the vast majority of stuff here (though the WBC trolls might only be relevant to their own article per WP:fringe, depending on how much media traction they get), and I do think this article is useful, but we don't want all this crap tacked on to the end of the main article. It's all a matter of relative importance. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were a number of substantial reactions worthy of encyclopedic coverage beyond the standard fill-in-the-blank condolences. These included the Turkish newspaper dispute, the media firestorm over the pastor who condemned the victims of the attack, the Trump-Obama dispute, the walk-out in Congress over the refusal to pass a gun-control bill, numerous attempts on the political right to blame the attack on the religion of Islam, the arrest of individuals in Russia putting up #lovewins signs, ect. Ultimately, there are more than enough substantive events in the present to justify keeping this article at present, and common sense dictates that the deadliest mass shooting in American history is going to garner additional reactions as time goes on. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge key points from the first three sections. A list of statements released by governments about a massacre is no more notable than a list of statements released by governments in honour of an anniversary or holiday. Graham (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim to only involved countries, agencies, and/or organizations; per precedent on other pages like Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. If this renders the article too short, and there is space on the main article, a merge back would work as well. ansh666 05:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Keep for now I think we might feel differently in a month but for now this keeps nonsense out of the main article and we have a place for people who want to know what everyone had to say. Reactions to the September 11 attacks makes it likely that some version of this will be kept and used years from now. Computationsaysno (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it always ends. Keep for now, then a month or so later, someone tries to delete again and it's summarily closed as too soon after the one held while people were fired up. So everyone stops caring till another one happens, when they're used as "What about x?" votes. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can't win an argument, but enough of them can always score a "no consensus". And there's almost always another "national tragedy", so any attempts to delete an older Reactions article are seen as timely pointy edits to undermine the new AfD.

Deletionists are doomed, as far as these things go. But we still do very well in stifling YouTube artists and local hero cats. That's admirable, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Either keep or merge to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, as this is a reasonable search term per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the article consists of any long lasting effects from the event (laws and regulation changes). Any reactions from notable figures should be kept to people with decision making abilities or public figures. US Presidential candidates that use this current event as fodder for their personal political agendas should be left out. That would be my encyclopedic opinion on the matter. DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent article 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Do not see this as being notable enough for a standalone article. Davidbuddy9Talk 04:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with a collection of reactions from many notable individuals. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amend or Delete - It is extremely difficult on a "Reactions" page to avoid the appearance of one-sidedness or favoritism. I felt the original tone of the main article was written to favor one viewpoint over another. The original article now reads much more neutral. However, a “Reactions” page will allows be defined as what is too much and what is too little, always fighting to remain neutral. While this may be an article in which many users gravitate to read various notable reactions, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Why not create a page that simply lists the names of people who have had a reaction to the incident, and then simply footnote the source of the reaction, and let the users go to that source if they so choose. Also, while this may not be the format for this comment (I am extremely new to Wikipedia), I do not understand why the brief link to the shooting, on the main page, says “gay nightclub”. Why not just “nightclub”? I accept the position that the status of the facility as a club for gays was likely some kind of motivation (maybe multiple) for the shooter, but virtually every target of a terrorism incident is chosen for one or many reasons. Instead of “gay”, why not say “mostly Latin”? Why not say “long-standing”? Was everyone there gay? I believe the more we label something, the more the label becomes a factor in separating cultures, races, and/or religions. By using the word gay on the main page, it immediately classifies everything going forward for a user, without the background and perspective that comes in an article. The main page link should simply say nightclub; the article can appropriately discuss the unique characteristics of the place. Rsbarnes (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Rsbarnes[reply]

This is exactly the kind of discussion I want to be taking place at the talk page that has not yet really occurred. I expect the vast majority of the current content of the article to be removed over the lifetime of the article going forward, but also expect it to be handled cooperatively in discussion at the talk page, where it will probably be easy to get agreement to remove the vast majority of say, arbitrary statements by heads of state, pursuant to the described summary at the village pump discussion linked to near the top of this AfD, where there is no inherent ban on such things but that there were many who stated most such statements posted were not necessary for inclusion. There are already many good parts of the article I expect will remain included, and many notable reactions that have not yet been included, such as the Murphy filibuster, and all the events described by Spirit of Eagle above. Your concerns sound mostly like such trim and content concerns that would be addressed there in the talk page and in revising the actual article. This, the Article for Deletion discussion, is about whether the article should ever exist at all, considering not only it's current state, but also it's future possible WP:POTENTIAL. Sumstream (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2016 (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.