Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

Close in progress: An administrator or other editor is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted shortly.

More information:

The user who added this notice will be listed in the page history; the page was last edited by Giftiger wunsch at 23:37, 8 January 2011. It is intended to help reduce edit conflicts, and to avoid closers duplicating each other's work. It also helps avoid a late comment being added to the discussion but not being taken into account in the close. If this page has not been edited for a few hours, it is usually safe to remove this template. However, if the debate is long, complex, or acrimonious, please allow more time.

)

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

I understand that this was created as a fork from 2011_Tucson_shooting#Reactions because the section was too long, but it seems the solution here is to pare down the content. Quoting a long list of politicans' reactions doesn't seem particularly useful or encyclopedic. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge with the main article. If length is a problem, the list can be pared down. Nakon 23:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the shooting article. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Kelly ^hi! 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I completely agree, especially since all of these quotes are nearly identical. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back into 2011 Tucson shooting. There is no need for a separate article on the reactions of the earlier shooting today, this is disproportionate to similar incidents. This reeks of a high level of recentism. –MuZemike 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, WP:NOTNEWS, a list of reactions from important figures in the main article is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Main article is not too big to hold this information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging would be EDIT WARRING. Already people have said to cut it out of the shooting article citing this sub-article. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging does not surmount to an edit war. And who said it should be spun out? –MuZemike 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Edit warring takes place without consensus. If there is sufficient consensus is formed here to merge rather than delete the content, that is not edit warring, it's consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed huge chunks from the 2011 article citing that there was a sub-article. The problem is that there should be a Wikipedia mechanism where there is a settlement discussion. Otherwise, one discussion says "A" and the other says "B", conflicting discussions. THIS IS THE MAIN POINT THAT SHOULD EMERGE FROM THIS DISCUSSION, THAT THERE SHOULD BE A WIKIPEDIA PROCESS WHERE THERE IS OVERALL DISCUSSION. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD; the only point that will emerge from this discussion is whether or not this article should be deleted (or indeed whether it should be merged into another article). Shouting by typing in uppercase is considered disruptive, please make your point without shouting down others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article. (WP:NOTNEWS) Not all of these quotes are needed but we can definitely add some of them. WE are currently discussing the matter over at the main pages' talk page.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim as needed. These things settle out over time, but it's a good deal easier to manage if it's all in one place. Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions Swimnteach (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The reaction to the incident is not notable by itself. It's only notable in relation to the shooting incident. Many of these quotes are redundant and it's not important that a reader know what ever Representative said about the shooting. —Ute in DC (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looks like the content has already been merged by the creator. I suggest closure (as well as everybody stepping back a bit). –MuZemike 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting. There's a list of reactions on the main article already. Try to avoid deleting any reaction unless the section is too long, or is already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.201.48 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and deal with any length issues by considering which reactions from the more important figures should stay. Adambro (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow close as merge- there's already the discussion on the main shooting page. Per WP:BEFORE, since this could easily be handled with a merge, there was really no need for an AFD to even be opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close to Keep The main article has a number of people who only want Boehner's and Obama's reaction so that is why a separate article is needed.Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read WP:SNOW? Nakon 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkapeliitta (talk • contribs)

No problem. Nakon 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions. KimChee (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and reduce in size - we don't need a record of every single politician's pronouncements about this atrocity.Mattnad (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AfDb