Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Few dispute that we could have an article on this topic, but consensus, as determined by weighing the strength of arguments made here, is that we do not need an article that is essentially a digest of dozens of government statements to the effect of "we're very sorry." Many "delete" arguments cite pertinent policies and guidelines including WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N (as applied to the condolence messages, not the quake itself). The "keep" arguments do not address the interesting WP:N issues raised by this case, but are for the most part limited to WP:ATA arguments, including WP:WAX, WP:EFFORT, WP:LOSE. And, Otolemur crassicaudatus, making an AfD contribution in the form of a personal attack on the nominator is one of the surest ways to get your opinion discounted.  Sandstein  20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I think it should be deleted!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.79.31 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another silly "reactions to..." article. It fails WP:N, which requires "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". The earthquake itself is notable, no doubt. The boilerplate reactions to it ("deep sorrow... deep regret... sympathy and condolences") are not. If Uruguay had said "we're really glad this happened", or if Malawi had said, "we don't give a fig about the quake", it would at least have been interesting, but this is dry as well as transitory. So, yes, it's sourced, but so is the entire run of newspapers every day - not everything in the news merits an encyclopedia article. Given that none of these reactions was profound enough that probably anyone will remember them a week's hence, let's delete for lack of notability. Biruitorul (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait/Merge I opposed the move in the first place, but it was moved anyways. So I stayed shut and worked on improving this particular article. I will now work on reaching consensus to move this back to the main article. Give me a day or two. --haha169 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AfDs typically run 5 days, so let me make a deal: if you merge back within 4 days, I'll withdraw. Biruitorul (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep: Bad faith nom. I will propose to take some measures against the nominator so that he cannot disrupt the AfDs. This is well-sourced article documenting the international reaction to a major earthquake. We have similar articles International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks etc. While this will be WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument, but this topic is valid topic. Not only this, any this kind of topic is valid topic. The main article 2008 Sichuan earthquake is becoming too long. To maintain wikipedia's standard article size, i.e. 32 KB, this information cannot be merged. The nom is frivolous. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur, I turned a blind eye when you were harassing the IP, but this will not hold. Please stop accusing people of things like this. Just because you disagree with them, does not give you the right to accuse people. Go discuss this on the talk page, or debate peacefully for its keep. --haha169 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, those reactions that you've listed have things in them besides just a list of countries. Plus, the 32kb standard, if that even is a standard, can be surpassed, greatly, at that. --haha169 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to take those measures - there's nothing out of the ordinary in this nomination and any official fora are bound to laugh off a complaint of "frivolity".

To address your substantive point - yes, the earthquake deserves an article, as I said. That doesn't mean a string of officials saying "we're sorry" (which always happens after a disaster) is also notable, and the fact that the article is well-sourced, as I have said, does not imply conformity with WP:N. Not every scrap of news deserves its place in an encyclopedia. You're free to disagree, but please do so in a civil fashion. Biruitorul (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's easy to rack up sources showing that multiple countries expressed sympathy for the victims of this earthquake, but harder to explain why that qualifies as an encyclopedia article. Unlike in the case of International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War, the reactions to the earthquake are not diverse or nuanced. Also, I encourage Otolemur to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Anything but delete - worth at least to merge and redirect back into the parent article; plausible search target. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pegasus, could you describe your ideas for a plausible merge on the Earthquake article's talk page? It would be helpful to hear more opinions. Thanks! To the nominator The creator of this article says that he will try his best to improve this article within 4 days, but if it does not meet standards, leave a message on my talk page and I will perform the merge. You may delete afterwards. If it passes, then everything is all fine. --haha169 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha169, I'm open to various suggestions. I prefer deletion (which is why I made the nomination), but if consensus leads in another direction, I suppose that's fine too. Biruitorul (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • If the reactions page is merged into the main page about the earthquake, we should leave a redirect rather than deleting the reactions page altogether. This is the standard procedure to comply with the GNU Free Documentation License. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Consensus on the talk page seems to be leaning towards a merge; and will probably end up as such, unless Chzz manages to bring this article up to scratch. --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is nothing more than a directory of pro forma announcements of sympathy. As governments and NGOs frequently make such announcements they are of little encyclopedic value. These mainly get into news stories as a local angle and into Wikipedia probably for similar motivations but also in both cases due to a lack of high-quality information on the event, thus they fill a news vacuum in the initial hours. But they have very little value to an encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Dhartung. These announcements are so banal they even do not deserve a redirect. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- Its a notable subject that's well sourced. I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, yes, it's sourced. But it's also quite ephemeral - that X,Y and Z expressed their condolences is not exactly encyclopedic material, per the "short burst" clause of WP:N. Biruitorul (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm the 'creator of this article' mentioned above. I feel my opinions have been somewhat misconstrued. I created it after considerable discussion on the original article page, in which I wanted to delete the secion, and the 'Foreign and domestic aid' secion. A compromise seemed to be moving it into a separate article, which met no opposition, so that's what I did it.

I can't see a consensus in the discussion 'leaning toward a merge'.

I did not say I would improve the article within 4 days; I said that we should await the result of this AFD, referencing WP:GD "exercise extreme caution before merging...It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete".

My opinion is that it would devalue the main article, as the information is not worthy of an encyclopaedic article. --  Chzz  ►  15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can summarise the article in four words: "ground shakes. people sad." - as the nom says, this is just a list of boilerplate reactions, unlike 9/11 or Lebanon where you can have X governments supporting and Y opposing. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this article should be deleted, it's not worhty of its own article and the content should definitly be merged. I echo Otolemur crassicaudatus's comments above though, that nom is ridiculous, badly written and bad faith.--Phoenix-wiki 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my nomination was written in good English and presented policy-based reasons for deletion. No bad faith was involved - or would you like to point it out? Biruitorul (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and definitely not merge – the contents is in no way from encyclopaedical value. That the Pope prayed and Dubya sent his condolences is an act of courtesy but no information at all. See als WP:RECENTISM on this. Did I say delete? --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I never said I was merging Vatican City. See 2008 Sichuan earthquake's talk page for a list of merger items. Some things on this list are quite important.--haha169 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On the WP:RECENTISM essay, it states "Sometimes side articles like 2004 U.S. election voting controversies and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities can be created to help to stabilize content on the main article, in this example, the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article. A compelling reason for creating side articles is that various editors will continue to add the same details of current events to the main article unless there is another place for the rapid influx of information to be recorded." which could be applied to Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.   — C M B J   04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. But here is nothing worthy for keeping. What is the message the reader gets from an information like United States: President George W. Bush gave China his condolences, and stated that "the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the Chinese people, especially those directly affected. and Germany: German Chancellor Angela Merkel has offered her condolences as well (...). And not to forget Thailand: The Thai government sent a letter of condolence to China.' and even Brunei: Prime Minister Hassanal Bolkiah expressed great sadness at the loss of life and destruction in China. Again: What is the information for the reader? There is none. None, except for The leaders of the pack were sad and offered help. As I said before: that all is a matter of course and an act of courtesy. Not worth to loose any word on it. What has some value is the other list in the main aticle concerning financial/material/personal assistance. That's not questioned here. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The colorful flags are very pretty, but the article has no other utility. Of course if there are a few countries that don't sent their condolences and say that its good that the earthquake happened - by all means, that's notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (at least until a reasonable period of time has passed): There are other catastrophes with similar articles (International response to Hurricane Katrina, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.) Hurricane Katrina even has individual articles for a number of countries (Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina, Dutch response to Hurricane Katrina, French response to Hurricane Katrina, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina, New Zealand response to Hurricane Katrina, Russian response to Hurricane Katrina, Singaporean response to Hurricane Katrina, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina) that have developed a fair level of encyclopedic content. The article in its current state is not very encyclopedic, however, given the fact that this is an ongoing event; it is presumptuous to terminate this article so soon.   — C M B J   02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Foreign and domestic aid" section from the main article will ultimately need to be integrated (as per the Hurricane Katrina article) for the desired educational value.   — C M B J   02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please see the difference between a reaction like in telling bla-bla and respúonse like in doing something. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I dont think there is much doubt that the subject will continue to be important enough for this sort of detailed coverage.People should letthis sort of article be developed, not rushing in the same day. DGG (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not an information store. If all information is correctly cited, then nothing unique is contained within. Otherwise it would be original research. Therefore all information is publicly available - we don't need to store it up for future generations. The content here is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia; therefore it should be chopped. If, some time later, someone wishes to construct an article on 'reactions' then noone would be happier than me. For now, it surely has to go. --  Chzz  ►  03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I personally have worked my ass off for this article to see it kept.

Richardkselby (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Bunch of lists, not very encyclopedic. Merumerume (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I was one of the editors who discussed on the earthquake article talk page about the hiving off of this article. The numerous "allowed" reaction-to-events articles have been mentioned before so I will not rattle through them here. The world has reacted to this event, now i know it is usual and expected - and granted, the Pope praying is not notable - but given the context Wiki recording who and what has been pledged is a useful precis of the events following the earthquake. The reactions article being separate avoids the main article losing its focus. The reactions article being separate allows Wiki to have in one place a record of pledges, reactions, something the mainstream media cannot complete. It allows Wiki to keep an unique record of world attitudes to China (generally) and natural disasters in tighter economic circumstances (more specifically). If it is curently a "bunch of lists" then be bold and change it - put it tables, or regional blocks, or turn it into a prose article with highlighted maps and charts.

Without this article being separate, the original article (already with an aid pledge section) will become very long and unwieldy. Without this section at all, Wiki administrators may have to decide whether a new policy will have to be drawn up, for I suspect the international reaction sections were becoming something of a standard following events. If this deletion goes through, then this "consensus built standard" will fall under question indeed. I say "keep" doktorb _words^deeds 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. These comments are noteworthy, and too extensive for merging into the main article. Axl (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Noteworthy"? For the news, maybe, for an encyclopedia, not really. Biruitorul (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is why I think maybe a review of international reaction articles/sections should be started. I really believe these sections have an encyclopedic value, certainly if we look back at how certain leaders or certain nations spoke to or about others in certain years, in ways far more specific than we could in the past. If we can find a way to make these sections relevant - and in many cases they already are - then we are onto a winner. If we can show, for example, that Nation X has pledged half as much as Nation Z, we can leave the reader to decide why that may be. The articles could place the reactions in a table, or show the geographic spread through maps or such like, to give an idea bout the worldwide context of the event. I am sure with consultation and consensus this article, adn the wider issue of reaction articles, can be saved doktorb _words^deeds 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm all for a centralised review of the "international reaction" articles - right now we're creating them in a sort of haphazard way after many big events, but a review, a policy even, would serve us well. Biruitorul (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake is one of the major natural catastrophes of all times. How different countries react to it reflects not only their stated position in aiding, but also to some extent, their relation with China. It is also good for record keeping, if we want to check if the promised aids were delivered. Besides, this article exist only because the original article is getting too long. Surely nobody would like to wipe out the entire "International relief" section in the Cyclone Nargis article? Why should China's earthquake of comparable casualties makes any differences?--Computor (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. per User CMBJ. Gollenaiven (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep or maybe merge in vastly shortened form. The article as it exists now is a laundry list of quotes which is very repetitive to read. One possible solution I tried out here and here. Still, I do think Wikipedia can have something, one way or another, on reactions around the world, which makes me reluctant to endorse deletion as the solution to what ails this article. Kingdon (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I like that proposal. Should the article survive deletion (as appears probable), it ought to receive our full consideration. Biruitorul (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is definitely a good idea. However, you have missed quite a few important points from some countries. If you can do this completely and fully, then this article will definitely survive. I still think some material should be merged back to the main article, though. --haha169 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What comes from the messages on both sides above is a need to evaluate the policy on international reactions, major news event articles, and how best to bring into articles the reactions from world bodies. I am not sure how to go about this, but could someone with a bit of clout initiate a policy review article or discussion article? It would help in the long run, I have some ideas, and it may be good to build a consensus going forward. doktorb _words^deeds 08:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have ideas and some energy to put into it, I'd say you would have enough clout to give it a try. I'd suggest coming up with a moderately specific proposal, and taking it up at Wikipedia talk:Recentism. Kingdon (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as users above--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or Transwiki at best. This just doesn't look very encyclopaedic, but I think it'd look like good Wikiquote material.... though a bit too abstract for that. Perhaps with additional work... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep most of these information may become harder to find later on. Benjwong (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So? How does that concern us? If it were encyclopedic information, it would be a worry, but since it's not (see the "short burst" clause of WP:N), we need not worry. Biruitorul (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "short burst" clause of WP:N should not apply. This is not really regular news reporting. Considering most of these nations have some kind of business or political tie with the PRC. Benjwong (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep this page is very important and includes info that may become harder to find later on as the user aboove said so I agree it should be kept.Thank you.Mertozoro (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again: we are not a repository of random scraps of news. We are not LexisNexis. We are an encyclopedia. If this information is notable, of encyclopedic value, then that's one thing. But it isn't - I invite you to review the "short burst" clause of WP:N and argue the contrary. Biruitorul (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. But there is a fair amount of duplication between this and the main article. The merger might be a better idea. In any case, the deletion is unneeded. -- Taku (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/MERGE. I am still intent on the merger. Based on some of the comments above, I somehow disillusioned myself that somebody would come and fix it. Seeing as nothing is happening, I am now, once again, considering Merging. I have a good idea all set up for it, which can be seen in the main article's talk page. Any comments are welcome. But I agree with the nominator that this article seems like random scraps of information as well as a large amount of duplication, ie. Dell and Olympic Committee.--haha169 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The merger would increase the quality of the main article, since the main article is just a list of countries and money figures. A single, nice quote from a nice leader would be a nice thing to go along with the list of money. --haha169 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and incorporate everything back to main article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not everything. Just the important ones like North Korea and United States. See full list in talk page. (Also, only snippets of those sections.) --haha169 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment regarding the proposed merges; the main article is already large as it is. It would be much more plausible to instead merge the bulk of information from 2008 Sichuan earthquake#Reactions within China and 2008 Sichuan earthquake#Foreign and domestic aid to Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which was likely the same rationale for Katrina, Kashmir, and 9/11.   — C M B J   11:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Another worthy idea, assuming those reactions were suitably notable and the article didn't simply become a dumping ground for random quotes and bits of news. Biruitorul (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.