Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the September 11 attacks

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable responses to a major world event. Meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Books include:[1], [2], should I go on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Or conversely, one could say that because of the specific aftermath there, Hussein's condolences are all the more interesting. LjL (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major world history event with notable world leaders reactions.--MONGO 04:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snow keep per EpicGenius, AusLondonder, and Wikimandia. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep September 11 attacks? Yeah, I think I've heard of them. FFS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't automatically become non-notable either, though. Which part of WP:Notability do they fail (especially reactions to 9/11, though the question could hold for reactions to less notable events)? The specific WP:Indiscriminate section doesn't seem to provide an example that applies, and on the entire lengthy page, I'm not finding one really suitable "what Wikipedia is not" for it, when looking at their provided explanations. WP:NOTQUOTE is the only thing I see that remotely applies, and only when reactions are excessively given in the form of quotations. LjL (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it's of any value at all to document that President X of country Y said that the events of 9/11 were ... well, fill in the blank. Responses come in two flavors: "responses" in terms of military action and political decisions, and those are of course relevant. The other "response", the verbal response, comes in two kinds--words of support, anger, sympathy, and such, and the rare support for the terrorist attack. I don't see why those words, which in the end really don't mean very much, should have an article devoted to them. As far as I'm concerned, that's common sense.

Not everything that can be verified is worth writing about, and a slavish dependence on "it's verified" means, in the end, the death of editorial discretion and common sense. Moreover, it steers us toward content that's severely slanted to what "the media" think is worthwhile repeating--which is typically that which happens in the developed world with a 24/7 news cycle and people who are very much like the typical en-Wikipedia contributor. That is, if all we go by is newspaper and website reports, which is what we're doing in articles like this one, a suicide attack in Lebanon is much less important than a suicide attack in Paris. Guess what, a comparison of the sizes of November 2015 Paris attacks (over 100k) and 2015 Beirut bombings (17k) bears that out, and more than half of the Beirut article actually consists of "responses". I mean, if that isn't a representational kind of bias I don't know what is: we're clearly suggesting that the one is more important than the other. We're not the news; we should take the longer view, and that's why we should not devote our time and energy to articles like this one. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the reactions from this tragic event was a major event with widespread coverage and in today's society. It easily passes WP:GNG and this is a an extreme WP:SNOW. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wholeheartedly Human nature wants to know 'who's for us' and 'who's against us.' Bias against, in this case, Muslims rears its ugly head especially when provoked. In a better world, this page wouldn't be necessary, 14 years later. In a better world 9/11 would have no meaning. We are not living in a better world. A great research tool. Where else is someone going to find this information next year, or decades from now? World reaction to the 11/13 Paris attacks should end this discussion. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when the nominator says "Questionable notability. Possibly better to merge with main article," literally all they had to do in the first place was ask that on the talk page. It's that simple rather than AFD'ing multiple articles questioning notability even though they pass WP:GNG and are very much a WP:SNOW case. They've been AFD'ed in the past as well with a large volume for keep and if people can remember an event from any amount of years ago, then its pretty notable especially when there is high casualties involved. Besides reactions like these aren't like memoirs of famous dead people, they're unique and offer help and security from supporting organizations and nations. Honestly I would be very happy if other nations recognized what has just happened to you, and offer to help fight whatever caused it. Just remember before nominating an article for AFD, just think as see what can be changed and ask questions if needed. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Didn't even need to think about it (much). General Ization ^Talk 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SpK. 9/11. 'nuff said. Also, list page needed to prevent an already extensive September 11 page from being even longer. Optakeover ^(Talk) 17:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep -- the 9-11 attack was such a momentous event that it is entirely right to have multiple articles on it, including this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.