Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:19, 19 June 2021

Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The existence of these articles, "Aftermath of the 2021 US Capitol attack" and "Criminal charges brought in the 2021 US Capitol attack", especially as splits from the main article "2021 United States Capitol attack", constitute WP:UNDUE weight of those specific aspects of the events. Normally I would suggest merging to the main article but the main article is large enough already.

Additionally, until I acted on it, the "criminal charges" sub-article didn't even have a link to the main "2021 US Capitol attack" article in the lede section. (See this version from a couple of days ago: [1] )

I am also nominating the following related pages (reasoning described above)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If merge is the most plausible outcome, but the OP admits that it should not be merged because the main article is large enough, then it seems we are following WP:ARTICLESIZE perfectly. While due/undue conversations can certainly be had about some small portion of the material in the sub-articles, it's clear from even just a cursory glance that there's quite a bit of information that is due, and was split off for size reasons in the parent article. What content is due/undue is a consideration that can take place through normal discussion/editing processes on the talk pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Argument given in deletion proposal is not persuasive. Why is it - all of it - UNDUE, exactly? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep no valid reason for deletion Feoffer (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing any good reason for deletion. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The aftermath article is certainly discussing relevant aspects that would not all fit into the 2021 United States Capitol attack. I don't really think this article is giving "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", as the aftermath has brought an impeachment trial, many investigations, arrests, and more. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thank the nominator for applying related links to the "main" article, but disagree that these pages should be deleted, they not serving as forks but rather as subpages to an overlong main page. Since several threads have appeared on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack discussing the merits of "splitting" the mainpage, it's heartening to see such a variety of contributors I see there encouraging a keep outcome of what I view as subpages here. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Berchanhimez said, we can discuss whether some content of the articles is WP:DUE, but it's pretty obvious that the topics as a whole are notable. For example, hundreds of WP:RS have covered the criminal charges and are still publishing new reports every day. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and merge where appropriate). The existence of the Aftermath article is a leftover from an earlier phase in the development of this topic area on Wikipedia. It's comprised of content split off from the parent, Attack, article, but in the meantime, more specific articles that are technically it's sub-articles /edit: or sections of already existing articles, such as Donald Trump on social media/ were started and developed, all of them now in better shape than the corresponding sections of the aftermath article.
The aftermath article now simply duplicates the scope of these main articles, that cover quite discrete, natural, and recognizable topics such as Second impeachment of Donald Trump – that's actually something someone will look for independently, as opposed to an "aftermath of x" article.

In other words, the aftermath article is an intermediate level of topic coverage in terms of specificity, so that there are three levels (the attack article - the intermediate aftermath article which is a sort of a compilation of topics - the actual articles on the topics of the aftermath), but there should be two levels (the attack article - the actual articles...). There is no reason for this intermediate level anymore, it serves no purpose. Note that this rationale is completely independent from the nominator's. Also, I know that there is ample precedent for "aftermath of x" articles, such as the aftermath of 9/11, but where possible, these should still be avoided IMO — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the multiple discussions and consensuses (consensi?) reached at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack regarding splitting the original article. There is far too much information contained here to be easily merged back into an already lengthy main article, and current news reports/sources are more focused on the aftermath (arrests, commission, etc.) than the original event itself. Maybe in a few years, once this has all settled down, we can condense and re-organize all of the (then historical) content, but not now. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79: Nothing needs to be merged back into the parent article. The aftermath article can just be deleted. It simply mirrors content of article such as Second impeachment of Donald Trump, Donald Trump on social media etc. It's much better to link only to those specific articles from the parent article's Aftermath section directly (and that section will always exist in some form), and eschew any intermediate steps, that have only led to duplication of content, and difficulties in maintaining and updating all of it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no non-partisan or non-frivolous reason that I can come up with that would allow me to look at the extent of the coverage of this topic and think that we are giving it undue weight. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 * '''Keep''' - per the multiple discussions and consensuses (consensi?) reached at [[Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack]] regarding splitting the original article. There is far too much information contained here to be easily merged back into an already lengthy main article, and current news reports/sources are more focused on the aftermath (arrests, commission, etc.) than the original event itself. Maybe in a few years, once this has all settled down, we can condense and re-organize all of the (then historical) content, but not now. - [[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]] ([[User talk:Adolphus79|talk]]) 17:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 ::{{ping|Adolphus79}} Nothing needs to be merged back into the parent article. The aftermath article can just be deleted. It simply mirrors content of article such as [[Second impeachment of Donald Trump]], [[Donald Trump on social media]] etc. It's much better to link only to those specific articles from the parent article's Aftermath section directly (and that section will always exist in some form), and eschew any intermediate steps, that have only led to duplication of content, and difficulties in maintaining and updating all of it. [[User:Alalch Emis|— Alalch Emis]] ([[User talk:Alalch Emis|talk]]) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - There is no non-partisan or non-frivolous reason that I can come up with that would allow me to look at the extent of the coverage of this topic and think that we are giving it undue weight. /[[User:Tpdwkouaa|Tpdwkouaa]] ([[User talk:Tpdwkouaa|talk]]) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)