Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roninbk (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 18 January 2011 (→‎Note of closing admin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of comments on the shooting. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is just a few hours old so be patient and not hit it with a sledgehammer. Given some time, analysis can be provided. It is unfortuate that Sarek was fighting with me and escalated it to an AFD on this (a different article) rather than allow some time for article improvement. If an article is subjected to possible deletion, only an idiot would waste time fixing it. End this AFD and I guarantee you improvement. If none is made, then a 2nd AFD is possible.
Besides, this killing article is too long that several people said a section should be split off as is done here. However, already there are new sections about legislation and the aftermath, not just reactions.Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergethere wasn't a consensus on the talk page to make this. Also its listcruft --Guerillero | My Talk 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is just hours old and it is transforming away from the list. new sections have been added. New pictures, not found anywhere, added. Give it time and it can be transformed to a good article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no article like this for important public figures such as Reagan and the Pope, so this one should not exist either. It is listcruft. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an indiscriminite list of reactions. Already in the main article. Not news. Etc. -Atmoz (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, the knee jerk reaction is to delete, I understand but also note that several people think the reaction section to the killing article is too long. WP:SPLIT says if you think it is too long, to create a separate article. Do not violate Wikipedia rules by prohibiting a split. Thank you. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue for keep, as many articles pertaining to reactions to significant events exist and the political reactions to the Giffords shooting are worthy of encyclopaedic documentation, being a subject of much press coverage. While it is true that the article requires much rewriting, such as grouping reactions by type, subject, or source (media, congress, public etc), it does have the potential to be rewritten, and to be rewritten well. Quærenstalk/contributions 01:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, the only material not in the parent article is a list of unsurprisingly predictable condolences. Second, this isn't the Pope or the President of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. The intent here seems to have been to preserve the buzzwords that come in statements from politicians after any tragedy-- "thoughts and prayers", "deeply saddened", senseless violence, etc. That may be new to some, but after enough tragedies that defy words, one realizes that the same words are used again and again. Mandsford 02:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep As of this minute, the reaction section of the main article is very short so this serves a purpose. But there could be edit warring in the main article. Because of edit warring, this should be a keep or merge as merging keeps the history in case it is decided that the main article reaction section is to be short. Merging would allow easy access to the information. In contrast, the main article history is so huge that it is not practical to search it if some time later the information is desired. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are still going back and forth over this, but I believe that a sensibly sized Reactions section in the main article is all that is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. The article is less than 24 hours old, and clearly notable. Consensus at 2011 Tucson shooting‎ regarding the split is currently evolving (the last edit in that discussion was made only a few hours ago). That discussion should be allowed to reach a conclusion before an AfD is considered. YardsGreen (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Splitting this off is inappropriate. The better choice is use a little editorial discretion. We do not need every single statement by every single elected official and their brother. -- RoninBK T C 17:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the usual AFD so the closing administrator must be keenly aware of it. There are some who want a very short and concise reaction section. Some of those people are campaigning for it in the main article and are violently opposed to this article. Others want a lengthy reaction section in the main article, some of whom want to delete this article to make it more likely to happen. The true and best consensus is to have a short reaction section in the main article and have this article. That way the pro-short people get half of what they want (short reaction section) and the pro-long section people get half of what they want (a long reaction section, albeit in a different location). A "delete" is NOT the consensus since some people get all of what they want and some get none. Please be mindful of this. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
let's also look at policy Too many of these votes are "I don't like it". Let's see if this is notable. The answer is that this is one of the few times that the reactions are notable. The death of Tim Russert started a whole lot of reactions. So did this. The return of Baby Doc Duvalier to Haiti, not much reaction. So notability, this qualifies. As far as merge, a lot of people don't want this shoved into the shooting article. Therefore, the answer is clear, which is keep even though some don't like it. This is not a beauty contest. True, this article could be improved a lot but nobody is going to waste their time under the threat of a gun(imminent deletion) Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a memorial. No victims names are listed. If the article is kept, there can be much further material about the gun debate, civility debate, as well as more analytical description of the widespread worldwide support for Giffords. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per CSD G4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Nakon 23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the story has dominated the news for a week now and its aftermath has turned the political world on its head. The article in its current state is poor, so I would just fork everything from the main article to this one. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was already done as a result of this afd. Nakon 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unnecessary, unencyclopaedic, and possibly created to make a point, rather than meeting a perceived need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment sine I've already registered my notvote above. Does the reaction to the event have a notability independent of the event itself? Ironically, if this article were explicitly about the Palin brouhaha, it might actually be more encyclopedic, since a lot of that discussion became about Palin, rather than about the shooting itself. Most of the rest of this is really just part of the shooting and should be split from the main article if and only if we decided to include longer coverage of everyone's wailing and gnashing of teeth. SDY (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Andy the Grump's reasons pretty much. Sayerslle (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a mess. It doesn't have a clear topic. It's a recreation of a deleted article. Etc.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a random amalgam of information codified into an article by an editor who hasn't exactly been in agreement with the consensus on various issues regarding this event. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a list of reactions as it's already covered in the main article. WereWolf (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin

This is in essence the same article as previous deletion discussion which closed as speedy merge. CSD:G4 does not apply since it's not a copy-paste, but some of the same logic may be applicable. SDY (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note of closing admin

We must follow the rules, not "I don't like it". The topic of the article is notable. The reactions to the crime are so notable, even a President flew out to Arizona and Fidel Castro commented. There is also continued political debate.

The article CAN and WILL be improved but nobody in their right mind is going to improve the article with a gun (AFD) to their head. This article is notable and there's a lot to write, so keep it. If after a few months the article is crap, then you can say "we gave it a chance without holding a gun to its head, but it is still crap."

Furthermore, deleting this will destroy a lot of references compiled that can help students research a paper. Another point is that many here are so destructive; they want to get rid of the article and shrink the main article's reaction section to 2-3 sentences. By keeping this, you make those people halfway happy (they get a short reaction section) and the people who want a long reaction section happy (they have a sub-article) which is a true consensus, rather than making half of the people mad and half thinking they are victors. This was said above.

Finally, AFD is not a vote but a discussion. Nobody for delete has been able to come up with a valid argument against the fact that this article covers notable topics and is, therefore, eligible for an article. It is not simply a "My Condolences" list but a great article in the making. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we PLEASE avoid the unfortunate gun-to-the-head metaphor? -- RoninBK T C 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_reactions_to_the_Giffords_assassination_attempt&oldid=408630781"