Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown

International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown

International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown (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)

Unimportant responses to a minor event. Fails WP: GNG. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Don't agree was a minor event. It received significant coverage globally and had serious diplomatic consequences. Highly notable and information any credible encyclopaedia would include. AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - not a minor event, and WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:POINTy, seeking to get a clear consensus about these articles and their concept, User:LjL. AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - long and involved coverage over months and months. Clearly notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international news events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which criterion of Wikipedia:Speedy keep do you make this under? If not, your !vote should simply be a standard keep !vote. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Im not seeing any convincing argument for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW close please... this was not a minor event but a major diplomatic incident (as well as a massacre). For this reason the international response is very important. cf. the Paris example where we already know, more or less, what everyone is going to say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC).
  
• Keep' I agree with the above, can this really be considered a minor event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: erm, you already !voted above... LjL (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I think you were looking for Template:Merge, but... Edit: this was started because another page had been nominated for deletion; the difference was that it was probably nominated while still new and short. This article is of questionable value when it doesn't even mention the recordings and transcripts released by Ukraine in a large number of languages, in "reaction" to the crash. Still, actually merging is too much work, so keep 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)