Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks
Appearance
- Reactions to the September 11 attacks (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)
Questionable notability. Possibly better to merge with main article. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - the notability is far from questionable, and merging is a matter of a merging discussion, not an AfD (although I probably wouldn't merge, due to length). I note also that this was an arguably WP:POINTY nomination, see this. LjL (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- You have criticised the concept of these articles now are !voting speedy keep. You're a wonder. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable responses to a major world event. Meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Snow Keep' - I have a hard time believing on the nominators part that they did any research. There are numerous books dealing with the reaction to 9/11. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Books include:[1], [2], should I go on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep A series of WP:POINTy noms with zero WP:BEFORE done at all by the nom. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 16 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 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment As evidenced by the essay linked above, deletion discussions on this and similar topics have the potential for proper debate free of precedent and prejudice. However, in this case I think neither side has done much research. The nominator, Kenobi5487, wants us to believe this should be merged with "the main article" without specifying what article he means (is it September 11 attacks, or Aftermath of the September 11 attacks?). The sources provided by Knowledgekid87 (which are not cited in the article) seem to deal with the institutional and military response that is discussed in an entirely other article: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks. One more thing, and something Fences and windows' essay should address, is that reactions like this seldom have a WP:LASTING effect. Case in point is the condolences presented by Saddam Hussein of Iraq as documented (
though unsourced) in the nominated article. The legacy of these and other condolences are generally overshadowed by the more tangible aftermath of events. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) - Keep Major world history event with notable world leaders reactions.--MONGO 04:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy snow keep per EpicGenius, AusLondonder, and Wikimandia. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)