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. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting[edit]

Note: Title article has been moved to:
Reactions to the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting
20:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the middle of a discussion about the applicability of NOTNEWS in relation to the Las Vegas shooting, we get the creation of an article that is essentially a collection of news items--with, of course, the requisite, standard expressions of sympathy, flags and all. No: that something is verified doesn't mean it's noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is not a news cite. The expected condolences from politicians and famous people can be expressed in a few sentences -- much more effectively and productively. For everyone, please avoid the argument "there is precedent" because I have proven that is not the case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very good citation. There are deleted reaction articles (such as 2010 Moscow Metro bombings)and no article on the Reactions to the Lincoln assassination. However, there are kept reaction articles (such as Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, Reactions to the 2005 London bombings, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (2nd deadliest shooting in the US, after Las Vegas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard10 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard10 is it a bad time to announce that in those examples you provided the main argument to keep was "there is precedent"? That isn't a policy-based rationale but rather an excuse to keep a sub-page full of clutter and unencyclopedic quotes away from the main article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: The problem is that there is no community consensus on what to do here as this is a gray area when it comes to our policy/guidelines. If you look at WP:REACTIONS this article has about a 50% survival rate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not encyclopedic. I agree with the nomination and TheGracefulSlick. Doug Weller talk 05:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's essentially useless. Everyone has a reaction. The only "reaction" should be involved in the main page and it should be any concrete reactions such as laws proposed or regulations changed, without op/eds attached.Seola (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant reactions can be summarized in the main article. Offerings of condolences are generic and their repetitive quotes are not encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , It can be summarized in the main article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual codswallop and platitudes: "the President of Foobar sends his condolences and abhors violence". Unencyclopedic dross. WWGB (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (best). Just an ordinary shooting. I think it should be merge to the main article, not be independent.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No speedy delete Reactions articles are typical Wikipedia. On the other hand, many people hate reactions article. While there is a track record of reactions articles, others bring up "other crap exists". There should be thorough discussion and not a quick non-administrative deletion. Of some value is that there is reliable sources that cover reactions so the reactions topic might be valid. It is not just original research where editors pick out reactions and make an article....there are news media articles solely about the many reactions. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All events have reactions, they are not encyclopedic and fit within WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These opinions do not add value or understanding to the event and thus are not needed. A couple pertinent or poignant reactions could be included within the main article, but the rest is not needed. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy incubate for 7 days~~ The Hayley Geftman-Gold story is big enough to survive in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Banal. The Hayley Geftman-Gold story appears elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete per above but merge as section in 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting --Cs california (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, but include some notable comments at the main page. Definitely don't merge the politicians list. I am somewhat surprised at the early direction of this as in my experience it is difficult to delete these articles so soon after a tragedy occurs and peoples emotions are running high. Maybe it is to do with the ongoing discussions about NOTNEWS or the general high esteem the nominator is held in. Personally this is one of the more pervasive issues with unfolding current events, this rush to include condolences from our country of choice. In almost all articles these add nothing new and they can even drown out the details of the incident itself. Notable respnses can be included at the main article and the rest can be summed up with one sentence "Many leaders from outside the united states sent their condolences". The whole flag thing and generic quote are completely unnecessary. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of press releases. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings; the discussion closed as "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These need to go somewhere, and as long as they're piling up in this heap, the main article can run clog-free (or clog-freer). Multiple sources have covered multiple reactions, some in multiple ways. All can be presented properly and informatively for those who enjoy this sort of thing, without bothering those who don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge In its current state it would be better to merge the reactions with the main article. Until the time which it becomes too large or unwieldy it should have its own article. There are plenty of reaction articles to tragedies and deaths of individuals or groups. There is no hard or fast rules to these type of articles to exist or not.F2Milk (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with the article itself. It simply details the REACTIONS to the attack. It is not supposed to describe the attacks themselves. Are we gonna delete any article that isnt good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.237.222 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 95.103.237.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom and include most notable reactions to the main article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any notable reaction that is not covered currently can be added later, I see no need to merge. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it should be deleted or merge to the main article cause its not necessarily for reactions to have an independent page. All Relevant reactions can be summarized in the main article. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy incubate for 7 days~~ per User:Unscintillating, the Hayley Geftman-Gold story itself is big enough to survive in the encyclopedia. In response to SPA IP 95.103.237.222's "Are we gonna delete any article that isnt good enough?", yes, articles that don't cut the mustard are usually and properly deleted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Merge most relevant reactions into the article and redirect, it's becoming a crapmagnet and battleground.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Is it big enough to have her crucified on the internet? Drmies (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is Wikipedia doing that? Are you claiming that it is? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Given it surpassed the Orlando incident as the deadliest mass shooting, I see no reason why this shouldn’t be kept here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deserves an article more than the Orlando shooting. This was nominated for deletion too soon. Fortunatestars (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Obaid Raza (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with the main article, but only to some extent. Reactions from the President, from the Governor of Nevada and the State's Leaders, from Nevada's 2 U.S. Senators, the U.S. Representatives from the area, from the Leaders and Whips of the House and Senate, the Supreme Court, the Mayor of Las Vegas and nearby communities, the religious leaders of Las Vegas, the area's state senators and representatives, big important countries that are our key allies- the UK (P.M./Queen/London Mayor), France (President), Canada (P.M. or Gov. Gen.), China, Mexico, Australia, Brazil, Spain, S. Korea, Japan, Italy/the Vatican, Poland, would be examples. Certain historic events-the worst peacetime, non-terrorist shooting ever in the U.S.- are worthy of commemoration from national and world leaders, and would be more acceptable to be listed, to a limited extent, either in the article or in a separate article. A list of every country or supra-national body or organization is one thing, an extreme. But it is understandable to include some, because the citizenry looks to its leaders and public figures to reassure them and comment, and as a (minor, but still important) part of the historical record of the event. Relevance is key. I could not care less what our enemies think, save for a few noticeable groups. Allies are more worthy of comment, so are the leaders, or stars, most directly involved. It doesn't have to be a none or all level.98.215.153.31 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopedic topic. Just because other such articles still hang around doesn't mean we need to keep this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These AfDs are becoming expected by now (WP:REACTIONS). It really is a coin flip if this one is kept or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) - really just the usual reactions to an event like this, keep the main notable reactions in the main article and the others don't deserve to be included. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the growing number of mass shootings, reaction pages have emerged as an effective way of keeping the main articles focused on the crimes, victims, perpetrators, and investigations, while allowing for coverage of RS/noteworthy responses to the tragedy. Scaleshombre (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can keep the relevant reactions (i.e. Trump, Nevada, local authorities) in the article of the shooting. We don't need a collection of condolences. Only the future will tell if this article must exist, but for now, we don't need it. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. The tragedy happened so recently, we can't gauge the notability of responses yet. Mr. Anon 515 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:A10, or else close this damn AfD per WP:SNOW. We do this almost every time there's a shooting (e.g. Manchester, Barcelona), someone creates a "reactions to" page, and we get an absurd discussion. If we can't find a consensus on how to handle these pages (either a rule that AfD nomination is PROHIBITED for at least two weeks after the event, or a consensus to allow speedy deletion), we need to ask Jimbo to rule dictatorially on them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would go with WP:WWJD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Strong Keep~~ (striken in view of the same word is Wikipedia jargon with a different meaning). This AFD should NOT be a case of "I like it" or "I don't like it". Otherwise, you would delete North Korea because I don't like it or you would delete an obscure stub because I don't like it. Rather you should ask "are there reliable sources about the subject". The answer is a strong YES. There are specific news articles about the reactions. This is not just original research searching Twitter for reactionary comments.

Another STRONG KEEP point is that there are special reactions. For example, the obscure state of British Columbia, Canada quickly put flags at half staff due to a British Columbian being killed. It is rare that a foreign province would do that. You don't see the Governor of Nevada making comments about a shooting in Afghanistan and lowering the Nevada flag at half staff.

My personal feeling is that "I hate it", "I wouldn't mind it deleted", but that it is the correct decision to "strong keep" it due to policy considerations and in comparison with other articles that were AFD kept. AGrandeFan (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGrandeFan, please see Wikipedia:SKCRIT, and don't just throw around terms: "Speedy Keep" actually means something, and only one of the criteria could possibly apply here--#2. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since we as a community cant come to a consensus on these types of articles I suggest either WP:ARBCOM, or WP:DRN. It feels like we go through this process every time there is a major event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you consider "consensus". On policy, the outcome is obviously to delete or very selectively merge. On "precedent", we may never know because this said "precedent" isn't supported by any notability guideline. I'm sorry Knowledgekid but these articles are just quote farms loosely threaded together by WP:SYNTH.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about why some articles are kept while others are deleted based on the same arguments in every AfD discussion. This will only happen again if something isn't done to put something in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but exclude or minimize run-of-the-mill comments/statements in reaction. Even well-publicized run-of-the-mill reactions should not be included (in any detail) on the sole basis of recent news reports, per WP:Recentism. In contrast, unusualness is a strong indicator of long-term noteworthiness. Also, please be aware that there’s a relevant survey at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Straw_poll_on_the_current_view_of_WP:NOT.23NEWS. One more thing: even unusual reactions ought to be excluded if they are primary sources such as opinion pieces in recent newspapers, unless those opinion pieces have been the subject of reportage by secondary sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are other articles on Wikipedia similar to this one. If they get to stay up, this should to. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just bloat, and a way for some to include more bloat that others have rejected on the main shooting incident article. Line after line of "Prime Minister/President/Senator/Supreme Leader X condemns the actions of X at Z" is of no encyclopedic value. ValarianB (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you may think but if you carefully analyze who said what and what they didn't say, that can be instructive. Not all countries had reactions. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I know, yes. Also, "the absence of evidence is not evidence Of absence", as the saying goes. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This attack is the largest mass shooting in American history. The # of reactions and detail would most likely expand over time. For this reason, this is a "weak" keep as opposed to a "strong" keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait probably Merge to main in a month. These reaction articles serve purpose in keeping out all the pointless, yet seemingly notable, reactions from the main article while this is still a hot event.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It goes without saying that condolences and shock will be expressed. Unlike the news outlets, we don't have column-inches to fill. The list is not encyclopedic. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Kim Jong Un did not condemn it. Did Belize or Botswana condemn it? Maybe not. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless reliable sources make note of such an absence, it is not for Wikipedia editors to draw their own conclusions. That runs into issues of Original Research, which is not allowed here. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It IS for Wikipedia editors to raw their own conclusions, but in their mind and not write it. This is the beauty of such article because it can help understand the situation better. In addition, the reactions are not simple condolences. The Australian prime minister made it a point to address gun violence. The Nigerian foreign minister made it a point to praise the Las Vegas Police, something that no other country did. They didn't say "fuck the police" but praised them and Nigeria is an Black African country. This article can be a list of "our country expresses condolences" or this article can be written in depth and offer great insights beyond "we are sorry about the tragedy". I have not made up my mind as far as delete or keep but have begun to see this as a very complex article and issue. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard10 this comment is incredibly puzzling. Are you surprised a "Black African" country praised first responders? You do realize black people do not universally hate law enforcement nor are they widely yelling "fuck the police" in the streets. There is not much to this article other than a quote farm consisting of reactions deemed unnecessary for the actual article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, depending on its size, or keep the article, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why, why WHY do these walls of irrelevant reactions keep getting glued into articles?? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most relevant reactions into the article, and then once sufficient time has passed, and further context can be established, consider re-instating the article, per Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, or, more relevantly, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the last deadliest shooting on U.S. soil. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any pertinent information into the main article, per TheGracefulSlick, Drmies and a few others. Merging the few important reactions to something along the lines of 2017 Westminster attack#Reactions or June 2017 London Bridge attack#Reactions (including the compromise Notes section to list the various countries who commented). - SchroCat (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the best solution for reaction sections I have seen and would support this approach here and most other similar cases. AIRcorn (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE should be applied to the section about reaction in the main article. JahlilMA (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless these are reactions with meaningful consequences, especially when the bulk is condolences for what happened. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was only created because people wanted to include irrelevant responses to the attack, and they were deleted from the main article. Natureium (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to thoughts and prayers Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is a major event, and there are a sufficient number of responses to warrant its own page. Many internationals of course apologized, but there are also important statements by Donald Trump, the fake news issues, and it might also be a good place to mention the discrepancies between news sources as the events unfolded. Further - this is the largest mass shooting in American history. As I said, a major event, definitely worthy of a "reactions" page (also keep in mind the reactions to this event will probably increase as time passes - crazy to think this only happened Sunday. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article readily passes GNG, since there are multiple secondary sources about reactions to the shooting, and will continue to be. Just as Project Gnome provided global geological data, this tragedy provides a seismological snapshot of world culture. It is a place to discuss everything from ISIS to corporate censorship, knowing they are all linked back to its main topic by secondary sources. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other delete !voters. This article is a quote farm that has been SYNTHed together into a list. While the individual reactions have received coverage, there's precious little media coverage of the overall topic of the reactions. Any unusual or unexpected reactions or those made by major political figures like the US president can be selectively merged into the main event article along with a sentence or two summary of the other reactions. Ca2james (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone is directly involved its meaningless. BernardZ (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant reactions can be merged into the article of the shooting. Only the future will tell if the volume of reactions will be large enough for an article like this to exist, but for now, we don't need it. --EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is already a reactions section in the main article. Seems like much of this info is appropriate for that article. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Frmorrison (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. This is fucking ridiculous; it's just a bunch of blatant rehashes of the same basic "this was a terrible crime" message. It quite frankly doesn't really matter what certain individual people have to say when it's all part of the same general thought. If someone somehow has a significant response to it (which I highly doubt will happen), then it would be much better to mention that in the main 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting page. In fact, everything of value on the incident is already included there, which is where it truly belongs. Any other significant details that come along should also go there. This page is not by any reasonable measure an encyclopedic topic. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One unaddressed issue is that delete/merge will effectively destroy information. It is a foregone conclusion that if you merge this article with the main article, all the reactions will be removed except Trump and maybe another one.

Another unaddressed issue is that several delete votes don't understand this reactions article as think it is merely some people saying "I'm sorry, accept my condolences" when it's not. The Nigerian and Australian responses are unusual as with the Singaporean response.

Yet another unaddressed issue is the wide variety of sources of responses. Not only Canadian provinces, but internationally, religious, musical, celebrity, and other sectors contributed to the reactions, reacting to the worse shooting in US history. No other shooting were there 600 casualties. Usually there is 5 or 30, but not 200, not to mention 600.

I have not voted yet because, despite all this, I understand the "I don't like it" aspect and also the desire to mimic a paper encyclopedia, which doesn't have this type of article or articles about video games or porn stars, which are Wikipedia legends. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Honestly, there just isn’t much encyclopedic content here. I would recommend merging Scalise’s reaction, and the language under television networks (neither of which is present in the main article). As for the international section, the only things even remotely noteworthy was that Tel Aviv’s city hall was lit up like an American flag and that British Columbia Premier John Horgan ordered the flags flown at half-mast to honor a victim from that province. Just about everything else can be summarized as thoughts, prayers and condemnations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. Not doing so is merely an excuse for amassing largely repetitive content; doing so will (helpfully) require considered selection from that mass of information. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the magnitude of this incident, and the as-yet unresolved character of its implications, I would keep it for now. Too early to nominate for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one or two noteworthy reactions, as indicated above by Spirit of Eagle, then delete the article. No need for a redirect. Somebody said "These need to go somewhere"; no, they don't. There is nothing even vaguely encyclopedic about listing every cliche voiced by every leader in the world. With flags yet. This is pure cruft. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. This question can be revisited at another time. At the least this article is serving a purpose as a possibly temporary repository. The sheer volume of material here—some of it unimportant—would unnecessarily burden the main article. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and also because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. HastyBriar321 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - anything useful into 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and redirect. -- Longhair\^talk 16:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These articles always have this kind of section. No reason the deadliest shooting in U.S. history shouldn't be here. --GeicoHen (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Based on Policy I think this article is similar to porn star articles and video games in that some people don't like it. 1. Policy-wise, this article is notable by being covered in reliable sources. 2. Policy-wise, this article is allowed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I looked at that link and this article passes on all 4 examples (this is an example of wrongly citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 3. Policy-wise, this article passes because there are articles in reliable sources that discuss reactions. It is NOT Wikipedians cherry picking one reaction from a news story and piecing them together for a Wikipedia article. There was a mention of it in the article but someone removed it (which is a way some (not all) people get articles deleted by making it poorly written) 4. This article is a keep because it is NOT just politicians saying "I'm sorry" but some very unique comments, like commending the LV Police or making anti-gun statements. Also has reactions from more than politicians. 5.It is very un-Wikipedia to try to delete this by claiming that it can be merged. Once you merge it, in 2 seconds, all of the contents will be removed (which is like a delete).

In conclusion, I think this is a typical weird Wikipedia article but it is a keep according to Wikipedia policy. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong Keep" - This attack will undoubtedly be remembered by history. In addition to being the largest mass shooting in US history, depending on how the independence bids of Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan play out this event will be one of the first international tragedies they respond to, setting the precedent in how they handel future instances of global tragedy. Other reactions with serious implications at risk of being viewed as unimportant by the predominantly European, North American, and Australian English language Wikipedia user base include Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Nicaragua, etc. NGJellico (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)NGJellico[reply]

Note that the above editor has never edited anything but the article and this discussion. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see why this article cannot be submerged into the main article. This article is pointless imo ThePlane11 (talk) 10:27, 10 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.