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. No consensus for a particular action has occurred in this discussion. Some of the !votes on both sides of the debate are subjective, rather than being guideline- or policy-based, and several users have opined for merging, the latter of which can be discussed further on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack[edit]

Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack (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)

There is nothing noteworthy about any of these reactions. They are all totally predictable. The reactions of the principal leaders are already detailed in 2017 Barcelona attack and can be condensed; anything more than that is over the top. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject is unencyclopedic, possible merge with 2017 Barcelona attack. Meatsgains (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This discussion has been had about twelve million times now. The consensus has been set. If it should be changed we should consider having it for all these articles rather than debating the same issue for each article to meet an inevitable conclusion of keep. This discussion is valid but a broader consensus is required to justify delete. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• strong kseep per above and it has been split too as an accommodation. Further, it IS thoroughly enclycopaedic if one realizes the purpose of an encyclopaedia.Lihaas (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which purpose does this refer to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - There is no reason to list these, on a separate page or not. --Dellavien (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This stuff will accumulate on Wikipedia so long as it's in the news. Better to have it here where people who like this sort of thing can read, write and ponder without disrupting a substantial article's readers, writers and ponderers, and never running out of space. Everyone wins. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no, it's not as simple as continually deleting it from there. You have to delete it, argue with someone, wait for it to come back, delete it and argue some more. Lasts for six days, on average. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep If other articles about such incidents have a separate page devoted to reactions to them, this one can be kept.TH1980 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see Category:Reactions to 2010s events. Most of their Talk Pages elaborate on why they exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yes, there are other articles like this, but generally I haven't supported keeping them either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I do think this article is useful in some way, I also agree with the nominator. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The WP:OSE arguments are not very convincing. This is just a collection of quotes and usually expressions of condolences. It can easily be addressed in a much orderly fashion at the article regarding the incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been through twenty or more, and none were easy or orderly. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then that just means it is not being conducted effectively. We do not need an article, whether it's a standalone or a section, which has lists devoted to essentially the exact same response. Statements which describe something such as a form of aid -- impactful and therefore notable -- can be included in the main article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, probably Merge next month. Better to keep all the predictable and less hotable reaction on a sub page. In a month after we are done with the pressure to add these, we will have firmer guidelines/decisions on what to retain and we wiĺl probably merge. The end result is better if we redirect the reaction pressure to a sub page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The general consensus from the many discussions that have taken place on this subject has been to keep such articles. We should stick to a consistent approach. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AusLondoner: if you look at WP:REACTIONS you will see that there is no general consensus - approximately equal numbers have been kept and deleted. Those that survive are predominantly more than just a simple list of quotes. Also, see WP:OSE - why should this article be kept? Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: Because it was placed up for deletion in less than 24 hours and reactions take time to pour in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A separate page for reactions on the incident is insignificant in an informative context. Vignyana^talk 07:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki to Wikiquote. Do not merge with main article. This is not an encylopaedia article, it is a collection of quotes - pretty much none of which are anything other than formulaic expressions of exactly the same things that were said after the Nice, Paris, London, etc attacks. Any quote that is the subject of discussion in reliable sources should be included in the main article with a sourced section of encyclopaedic prose about that discussion and why it is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to help keep this stuff off the main article and then PROD it in six months' time. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat: Why delete it in six months time? Either it's encyclopaedic now and should be kept now and in six months, or it isn't encyclopaedic now it should be deleted now and so we wont have it in six months. Also, any article that has been kept at AfD is ineligible for PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about my mistake about PROD. Of course it's not encyclopedic but it's better to get on doing things that are encyclopedic rather than waste time over this. If this is deleted it will simply move the argument back to the main article. Thincat (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Neodop (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into the main article (at least some of the quotes). Don't see the point of just having quotes in the reactions article. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 10:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - If this page is deleted, editors will immediately want to pollute the main article with useless pap and virtue signaling from the P.R. departments of politicians, expressing how "sorry" they "feel" and how they "stand" with the victims, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Better to keep the politician excreta and hot air quarantined. XavierItzm (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @XavierItzm: while I completely agree with your characterisation of this content as "useless pap and virtue signalling" I see that as a reason not to include it anywhere on Wikipedia - every page in the main namespace is meant to be encyclopaedic, not just main articles. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I am in agreement that, in theory, the politician P.R. hot air belongs nowhere on the Wiki; but the reality of the prevalent feel-good culture combined with the consensus/vocal minority of Wikipedia editing means that unless a dump is found for the feel-good edits, the feel-good pressure to add at least a significant amount of politician pap to the main article will be, in a word, irresistible. As it is, the coalition to keep the trash out of the main article via the dumping-ground secondary article strategy hardly even holds, already... just look at the comments above and below! Look, let's be pragmatic rather than idealistic. Help keep the dreck in a Reactions dumping ground! Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Exactly like in other articles. One for the attempt and other for the reactions. --5truenos (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE Why is this article encyclopaedic? Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I apply the same criteria that in Brussels, Istanbul, Manchester, ...etc.--5truenos (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Manchester article has actual prose, which this lacks (it also has the flag cruft and quote farm which needs excising though), The Brussels and Istanbul articles are tagged as a WP:QUOTEFARM and so not reasons why this article should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:POVFORK. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Smerge with 2017 Barcelona attack. While not notable enough for its own article, the reactions are significant in painting a general portrait of the society and government in 2017, and should be on Wikipedia. Perhaps the list should be trimmed down to only European, North American, Middle Eastern, and countries from which victims originated reactions. alphalfalfa^(talk) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Why trim down the list of countries in such a way that the country of origin of the terrorists is not included? Do you have anything against the fine country of Morocco, which is not a Middle East country but is the birth country of Moussa Oukabir? XavierItzm (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are Middle Eastern and North American countries more significant here than South American, African, Asian or Oceanian ones? Historically and geographically Spain has more in common with North Africa than it does with Eastern Europe, historically it has more connection with Latin America than Canada or Scandinavia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nobody will remember this attack in five years. This is very useless information.Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge There is no encyclopedic value to repeatedly quoting "We condemn the attack and have condolences for the victims". These are repetitive and meaningless and can and should be summarized. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge The reactions should be noted, but the attack has not yet been significant enough to warrant a whole article. Alex (Talk) 21:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This stodge is as predictable as the sunrise. After every attack, it's the same old "The Poohbah of Foobar sends condolences and condemns violence", accompanied by little flaggy flags. And the inevitable result will be "no consensus". At least it's all kept in a back room where nobody ever takes any notice again. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're happy about the back room arrangement, why not just aim for keep instead of no consensus? Principle? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @InedibleHulk: I do not think that was the point of his argument. WWGB is saying the quotes are predictable and routine -- underserving of this much notice -- but is thankful that at least they are not on the main article. His (accurate) description of this article also leads me to believe he does not view this as an encyclopedic contribution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and they're not on the main article because they're here. The editors who've busied themselves here the past few days haven't obstructed the editors there, and vice versa. Sure, it's not perfect when stodge exists at all, but a perfect Wikipedia is a pipe dream and chasing pipe dreams causes needless suffering. The peaceful compromise WWGB (appears to) tolerate is obtainable with a Keep or No Consensus result, while Delete means unencylopedic content where people would take notice again. Why risk losing his second choice to state his first choice? Is he that sure of the inevitable that it's not a risk at all? If so, doesn't that certainty make it a keep vote in spirit? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I've been here long enough to KNOW it's going to be no consensus. This is just my little vent on something I personally abhor in Wikipedia! Although I concede the little flaggy pages survive, that doesn't mean I have to like them. It's like hating a kiss from your moustachioed auntie, but you're glad it only happens at Christmas. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Shit like this is not needed just like that kiss from your moustachioed auntie. But her big ass titties are another story. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the editor put a lot of effort into creating this page. It is true that some reactions are predicable but it is interesting to see reactions of Arab/Muslim majority countries like Iran. I wish there was a reaction page to every major attack worldwide. For example, the Canadians reacted very strongly to the Paris attacks but seem to completely ignore terror attack in India/Pakistan...Many Arab countries side with the Palestinians following attacks that they do. A reaction page would help compare reactions to similar attacks in different parts of the world. Scorpions13256, as someone who experienced terrorism, I can tell you that people living in the region of the attack will remember everyday for the rest of their lives and for those who don't live in the region or haven't been born yet....there will be books, articles, history books and wikipedia pages. What should we write in these pages for someone learning about this attack 20 years from now? --Jane955 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jane955 putting "a lot of effort" into an unencyclopedic quote farm is not a reason to keep this "article" (I call it that loosely). Please direct us to a policy instead of your personal opinion. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick I am sure you read what I wrote. The argument is that the reactions are predictable. I responded to that as well.--Jane955 (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How will someone 20 years from now learn anything from an indiscriminate list of formulaic quotations? The prose in the main article contains everything that is encyclopaedic about the reactions of people to this event. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2017 Barcelona attack as it is normal for reactions to trail events like this. PabloTheMenace (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RUSH. This article had been in existence for less than 24 hours before it was nominated for deletion which leaves little time for events to develop and editors globally to lend a hand here. There is also WP:RAPID to consider as again little time was given for the article's improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we remove all the quotes from this article, which add exactly nothing encyclopaedic, then remove the routine reactions that tell us nothing, we're left with a sub-stub that duplicates the material in the main article. The multitude of other reactions too articles, that have had months and years to develop, are almost without exception no more encyclopaedic than they were after 48 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with your perspective is that you are looking at this as a WP:PROBLEM. The quotes can be summed up, and the article can be expanded to include more reactions in prose form. Was there any political fallout? What were the reactions from the city? Which groups had a notable impact in the after events? There are ways the article can be expanded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is possible to write reliably sourced encyclopaedic prose about those things (and I have my doubts about some of them) then you can do so on the main article without need for 200 quotes that say nothing, indeed nothing in this "article" will help you do so, so WP:TNT would apply in that situation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Immigrant to Barcelona here. One of my local friends was ranting at me the day before about the 1987 ETA bombing of the Hipercor on the Avinguda Meridiana, so that's clearly neither true nor helpful to the general discussion. --TwoWholeWorms (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has that got to do with this nomination? Your anecdote seems to be a weak reason to have the encyclopaedia article about the 1987 bombing (which afaik nobody is questioning) and, at a pinch, a reason not to delete the encyclopaedia article about the attack itself, but completely irrelevant to keeping (or deleting) the collection of predictable, formulaic quotes nominated here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the 1987 Hipercor bombing article says, "There was almost universal condemnation of the attack" (with one citation), instead of linking to a separate article where the leaders of 50 or so different countries, plus a few football clubs and actors, are quoted as condemning the attack and expressing sympathy for the victims. I am not convinced that the practice of having a separate article containing condemnations of an attack and expressions of sympathy represents an improvement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments of the 'realists' above, such as 'Inedible", (ie anything except merge this drivel with the main page). It's worthless, but people feel cheated if they don't get a 'reactions' page, and if their country isn't represented on it, even though most of these reactions are wholly formulaic. Sensible arguments can be pragmatically rather than policy based. Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You admit it's worthless drivel, but still want to keep it? Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for drivel, and the best way to get that message across is to routinely delete it. Maybe you should change your !vote to delete. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Saw this article referenced at the talk page of Wikipedia:NOT where there is a discussion underway on a policy change that would impact on and perhaps eliminate articles of this kind. While I oppose that policy change I do believe that this article is superfluous and should be merged into the main article on the attack. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging means moving all the rubbish from this "article" into the main article; is that what you really want? The main article already has a brief summary of the reactions worth mentioning, so the appropriate action would be delete. It's not too late to change your !vote. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not necessarily all, as that would be undue emphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as nonencyclopedic. Basically most of the reactions is condemnation, that's all we have to say. Any constructive or unusual (but notable) reactions may be easily merged in the main article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2017 Barcelona attack and use the article as a Redirect. This article is a mess and is poorly organized and most of its sources are in Spanish. It should be merged into the main article. It is certainly well sourced overall, but this is the English Wikipedia not the Spanish Wikipedia, so many of its sources are unverifiable unless you are a fluent speaker of Spanish. It's inclusion of twitter posts and other questionable content needs review and vetting. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (with no merge) as an arbitrary collection of cherry-picked, primary-sourced comments - it is pure original research. -- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf and whatever the outcome, do not merge. WP:ROUTINE WP:NOTNEWS. No such user (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Combining these two properly referenced articles will clutter the article about the event. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to delete the reactions article and everything in it, not to move all that rubbish into the main page. Delete it and its contents, get rid of it completely. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - IMHO, the article is still suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What is encyclopaedic about an indiscriminate collection of routine quotations? Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - IMHO, it is better to have this many quotations in a separate article than to have them in all cluttering up the main article. We shall allow consensus to determine whether or not this article remains. I have been told that there has been a large amount of discussion about whether large scale articles about reactions to a particular incident should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, this many quotations are just clutter and we don't need clutter either in the main article or in a standalone article - collections of quotes belong on Wikiquote (that's the entire point of that project). Reliably sourced encyclopaedic prose about the reactions to a major event should start off as a section on the main article and remain there unless and until there is sufficient reliably sourced encyclopaedic prose to split the article. A small number of quotes which relate directly to this sourced encyclopaedic prose are fine, but an indiscriminate list of quotes is neither prose nor encyclopaedic - hence Wikiquote is a separate project not part of the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 25 August 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.