Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. While some editors like it and others don't, merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash[edit]

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is flag-cruft and not-news stuff yanked from 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. It is inherently unencyclopaedic and amounts to a memorial effort. Jack Merridew 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Warning: subst:spa|username -mania. IP-addresses are not real usernames, and can temporarly belong to any of the really active wikipedist, who this single time was lazy to log in. At the present moment, there are three SPA warnings at anonymous IP-addresses. prohlep (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, it is a good question why this particular deletion question is not a vote. OK, I personally do not like the votes as resource for decisions, even more dislike as a resource for truth. But then I wish to see, that we will not vote in the future in other interesting questions as well. I like the complete logical systems, where if something is true, then there is a proof for it, and there is no need to vote, like in a democracy. prohlep (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original begining is below the horizontal line below (prohlep (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)):[reply]

Nobody is proposing deleting the article about the event. The question is whether to delete the article about world leaders' reactions to the event. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a separate article - this is a worthy perhaps list-class addition to the main article. I think it will help future readers get a better perspective on this tragedy. I think the contents are valuable, verifiable facts and actually encyclopedic. eug (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and trim into main article where this belongs. Eusebeus (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after wikifying appropriately. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(double vote) there is no reason to delete articles about international events that are still happening. It will take days before this article can be completed. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an important notable article IJA (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SSTRONG keep this kind of thing exists across wikipeida. in addition to the moscow metro it exists for the 26/11 attacks, and others. it also makes page load times on the main page quicker instead of listing all of this when it gets so long — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now with a merge discussion to take place at the talk pages. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a work of progress Venustas 12 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
What article isn't? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep who proposed the deletion to begin with?? meh..--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a page in which to replicate news reports, especially when they can all be summed up without loss of information as "Many countries and international organizations have expressed sorrow and condolence", as the main article currently does.  Sandstein  05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsplit it should be in the main article. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And move a few of the relevant responses to the main article SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 06:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article: The international response is predictable and standard when a sitting head of state dies. Why devote whole articles to it? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it will consume more place than the rest of the (main) article. Please see WP:SPLIT. --Illythr (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the main article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on size grounds. At 54k it is too big to be a section of the main article. The splitting of is reasonable and acceptable. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, its current size is not terribly big. The previous incorporated version looked fine to me. Brandmeister[t] 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nearly twice as large as the main article, currently. --Illythr (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The information back into the original article with a redirect left behind. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per size as it is now 56k and is referenced. I for one find there would be a great loss of information with the summary suggested by Sandstein. The global response from fellow heads of state to the accidental mass death of a huge chunk of a national government and their military leaders can not be adequately conveyed by a generic statement. The generic statement should accompany a {{Main}}, as it is at the time i write this. The article could be re-written in a style like Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings as Illythr suggests but to do so while this discussion is ongoing could lead to greater confusion on what is being discussed here. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The list was removed from the article at pl.wiki. You should do so. Patrol110 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are many similar articles on WP, and consistency is important. It is well referenced and presented. In any case, keep at least for now, until the ongoing incident settles down a bit. -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 10:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - relevant and notable information that is too big for the main article; follows usual Wikipedia practice. Kostja (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - internatonal reactions are included in many other articles. Pl wiki didn't remove table, by the way. Sebk. let’s talk 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with WP:SNOW - this information is verifiable in reliable sources and would be part of the main article were it not too large. It would be difficult or impossible to reconstruct later and is likely valuable to historians, researchers, etc. in the future - not to mention journalists right now. Furthermore it is not likely to be a source of problems (spam, vandalism, etc.) and thus is relatively benign. -- samj inout 11:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let's imagine, if these texts and especially links may be used in scientific reports and mass-media in-depth analysis articles in some future? I think the answer is definitely yes, in both articles about the event itself and about the respective politicians. So the list is "encyclopedic". The information that is taken there is published in reliable sources, so it is notable and reliable information. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedias are not lists of source data for research. So what you are describing are not encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a testing property for being an encyclopedia whether the information in question is used for research or not. Hence the reasoning above is false.
In fact the English wikipedia is overfull with diverse biographical, discographical and other data.
It is dangerous for this wiki to forbid the "lists of source data", because significant portion of this wiki is simply that kind of articles.
To be encyclopedic is an elastic notion. In spite of the diverse efforts to codify it correctly. prohlep (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(triple vote) International responses are important for an historical basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.4 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) — 124.176.26.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Inherently unencyclopedic. It's a list of flags and quotes, all of which are completely typical expressions of solidarity and condolence that are given after any disaster. They don't belong in the main article, and they definitely do not need to be in a article of its own. Bringing other articles into this debate is irrelevant. Also per User:Sandstein above.-- Flyguy649 talk 12:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: There may be some atypical international responses (e.g. Canada's National Day of Mourning for the victims) that merit inclusion in the original article; the other reactions are still non-notable. If the section is more than a paragraph then it's too long. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The forbidding of "Bringing other articles" is interesting, since there is a strong culture in the west to base the law on precedences. I.e.: the decision is based on comparision to similar earlier cases. prohlep (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and discuss merge in talk section. This was split unnecessarily anyway and without consensus. Icedragz (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. — Icedragz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is placed without signing. (in fact, Rankiri did it) prohlep (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Icedragz appears to be an active author/corrector of the main article, and has some other activities as well, see http://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Icedragz prohlep (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously. Lugnuts (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, we have lots of articles like these, and for a reason. —Nightstallion 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS,WP:RECENTISM. The article is nothing but a fork of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#International filled with all kinds of synonyms for "sorrow" and "condolences". — Rankiri (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as separate article. - Darwinek (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a separate article, that's obvious. Kubek15 write/sign 16:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, There are articles and sections specifically dedicated to listing international reactions. This is recognized and done normally when a major event happens, and this is major, as it killed the President of Poland. I say keep or merge into an International reactions section.--RM (Be my friend) 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - --noclador (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the news (WP:NOTNEWS). Every death of officials has "international response" i.e. condolences etc. I am getting tired of WP:RECENTISM. We are losing control here I think. PS Strong keep without any arguments means nothing to me. This is not a vote we are having here but a discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and then discuss merging). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tranform similar to Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings article. prohlep (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in collapsed form. Why to delete if this article exists and is well? Emesik (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article. If it is taking too much space then move it to the last section of the main article. But I think the main article is not exactly long enough to justify a split. Blodance the Seeker 18:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Reaction sections (and in certain cases, articles) are standard fare for international incidents. A bit of time will tell whether this needs to be a separate article rather than just a section. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list is too long for the main page on the crash, a spinoff article is the only solution that works.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not important enough to warrant an article. Are all these "we're sorry for your loss Poland" messages from various governments really worthy of an article? Are they sufficiently distinguishable that Wikipedia needs to house every single one of them in an entire article devoted to them? Obviously the event itself is important but various world leaders issuing statements of sadness are not important. This article is unnecessary, it can all be contained in the main article, considerably trimmed down.173.59.191.99 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete This type of responses are standard in international relations, and not in any way form or shape notable. They should not have an article, nor be included in the main article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss in a few weeks, not the day after the related event happened. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back and trim it up too, this would account for the majority of the refs cited if remerged. If that's not possible, weak keep simply to avoid a main article that is too long.  fetchcomms☛ 22:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, a list of generic expressions of condolence x from random government official y in random country z is not notable. Direct response in Poland and Russia is relevant here, but the rest can be summarized easily with "representatives of nations across the world expressed their condolences..." Blatant WP:NOTNEWS issue, but as always, that part of the policy never seems to apply. Resolute 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.229.1 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC) — 99.24.229.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - per nomination. Everyone says the same things, gets boring Fighting for Justice (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing remotely noteworthy there; it's all totally predictable. Why not just create a page Standard responses to an international tragedy and link to that instead? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good or bad, the precedence for such articles is well established, and this was a major disaster for Poland and the international community. Keeping it separate is also good for the main article. If the objection is just on the principle of having these reactions articles at all, then have that discussion elsewhere, or put all of the other articles up for deletion. I've tried, it doesn't work. Singling this one out just looks like systemic bias at its worst, the outcome would be a landslide keep if it were say, Reactions to Hurricane Katrina or Barack Obama blows his nose. MickMacNee (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Otherwise, why keep articles like International reaction to the 2009 Victorian bushfires?--Forward Unto Dawn 13:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles missed my radar. Ive proposed them for deletion as theyre unencyclopedic. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A batch nomination is hardly a difficult task. It is pointless in the extreme to have these tedious afd debates, where you could copy-paste people's delete rationales into an Afd on any article. And nominating an aritcle on the day of the incident, rather than one dating from years ago, is hardly a tactical master-stroke, if trying to show this whole genre is shit. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a batch nomination is hardly a difficult task"... yeah... just find every "international response" article add the afd tags to it and do an afd for each of them... maybe it would be easy if you had a bot that had already been written to do the task for you. maybe for you writing your own bot to do all that is a piece of cake. for the rest of us mere mortals it is not. "nominating an article on the day of the incident is hardly a tactical master-stroke"... i agree. but it is what we are stuck with. Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive gone and done a search for many international response articles and marked them for deletion. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a batch nomination you only write the Afd rationale once and list all the articles. Sure, you have to find and tag ever article, but that is not as onerous a task as you might think. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one that I tried to initiate, yes (See here). It is hardly a difficult task to go check for other precedents if you doubt me. MickMacNee (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big difference. That article is mostly about what kind of help countries sent. That's a significant difference to this articles list of formal condoleances. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it would be hard to justify that belief without resorting to generous helpings of WP:POV about what is and isn't important information worthy of recording. I happen to think that knowing who sent what aid to Katrina is just as trivial/predictable/newsish/non-noteworthy, as recording who said what in response to this incident. I do wonder though how this Afd would go if it had been Air Force One which has nosedived into the Rockies in Canada, or how that set of Afd's might have gone were it about aid after a hurricane that devastated, say, Nigeria. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might happen to thing it's newshish or not notable, but you can't say it's the same thing. Therefore, you can not use the Katrina article as precedence in this case. Claiming it is as predictable or trivial is nonsense. In one case actual things were sent. In the other, standard statements of condolences was said. The difference is obvious and significant. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you haven't compared too many of these articles, but there is not much difference in the standard responses, whether people are saying something, or doing something. Like I said, this whole angle of debate requires huge amounts of POV to be able to say one article should be kept, the other deleted. I find it quite bizarre actually that in the topic of international relations, people think mere words are insignificant, yet sending aid is massively important. It's a naive view at best. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the words are created by the autocondolencegenerator I think we can assume they are pretty insignificant. It's like those genuine and heartfelt 'romantic' words printed in a Hallmark card. They are generally penned by a bored twenty-something with his finger in his ear, at best. Ericoides (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take your offensive and disgusting views elsewhere, I'm not interested, and they are of zero relevance to this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop your ad hominem remarks against me (here and below), OpenFuture ("naive at best") and others, and attempt to argue a position. Thank you, Ericoides (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hallmark comparison is actually of some worth. When you send someone one of those cards, the intention is romantic but the mass-produced sentiment as printed in the card, by definition, cannot be. I am not denying that the government officials feel for the victims of these tragedies. But that is not the issue here; what is the issue is whether it is worthwhile compiling a list of vapid platitudes. I haven't seen anyone give a good reason why such lists, which are indistinguishable one from another, are worth making. Ericoides (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Hurricane Katrina, Cambodia donated $20.000, Taiwan $3 million and supplies and Canada sent over a 1000 people, coast guard vessels and loads of help. It's an absurd statement to claim that there is no difference in different countries responses in that case. However, in response to the crash, these countries all sent expressed their condolences. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said compare countries aid to different incidents, not different countries to the same incident. Countries gave aid to Katrina, and countries expressed condolences on this death. Both entirely predictable and both entirely unremarkable. Trying to pretend there is a difference is pure POV. Or are we going to go down the route that it is editors role's to decide whether Canada sent enough people for their response to be recorded, or whether Russia expressed enough sympathy for their reaction to be recorded? It's irrelevant to whether the subject is notable or not, because that is an exercise in improper editorialising POV. The uniformity issue is a total red herring anyway, I doubt the reactions between responders would be uniform if it were the President of Iran/Israel/N Korea, which is why the actual content of the article is irrelevant to deciding whether the topic has merit. MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry, you pretending that the Hurricane Katrina page is just as predictable and unremarkable as this page is utter nonsense, see above. And would the reactions not be uniform if it was an evil dictator that died? Perhaps not, but perhaps then *that* page would have some merit? *This* page doesn't, which you clearly realize and recognize. Don't bring your disappointment in your failing AfD for the Katrina page over here. The pages are not similar, it's not a precedent, and WP:OTHERCRAP is not an argument. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking, and I don't see it, no matter how many times you say 'nonsense'. The only consistent thing here is your demand that I simply acquiesce to your POV assertion as to what is and isn't important. And arguing there would be a difference in merit between this page and a similar page about a dictator would be a similar exercise in pointless POV editorialising. There is nothing to differentiate these pages except opinions, there is certainly nothing here actually resembling a valid deletion rationale per the deletion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While very well sourced, the information seems to be more a collation of news reports and not a permanent record of note. Any actual notable responses (i.e. beyond the expected norm) could easily be accommodated in the relevant disaster articles..." This is what you said when you nominated the Katrina reactions articles for deletion. Now, did your opinion make a 180-degree turn or do you need to take another look at WP:POINT? — Rankiri (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, I still favour deleting them all, but as I wrote above in my keep rationale, "Good or bad, the precedence for such articles is well established", and if the objection is to the whole genre, which appears to be the case, then picking out this one article is pointless, and I also object to this artificial and POV distinction between laundry lists of condolences and laundry lists of aid responses, both of which should not exist if I had my way, but precedence for which has been demonstrated. The irony of POINT is, if this does get deleted, I would imagine listing all the others at Afd would be rejected as POINT, even though as said, the delete rationales in here apply to the whole genre of condolence lists, whether people agree it also applies to aid lists too. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different countries did actually send different types of help and different amounts of help as a response to Hurricane Katrina, and they actually do send different types and amounts of help to different disasters. But countries do not express different types or amounts of condolences as a response for this crash or other disasters. This is an obvious and self-evident difference, which you claim to be unable to see. I don't believe you. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. most of the votes to keep are WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violations (not that that will stop the closing admin from doing vote counting anyway, in violation of wikipedia's deletion policies). this articles content could be added to the article on the crash itself with a single sentence - "countries around the world expressed their remorse". of course i also oppose merging. merging is only useful if people would search for "International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash". like it makes since to merge and redirect an article on the pilot into the article on the crash but an article on international responses? no one is going to normally do a search anyway. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article but a news one. This may be a current event, but this article doesn't relate to that only what third parties thought about it. It's practically a page of hearsay about an event, regardless of the importance of the commentators. Dutpar (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This more than meets the threshold for WP:N. The international response to the crash has been a notable part of the reporting of the crash itself. Therefore, International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is a notable subject in itself. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This was a major international tragedy. Since Reactions to the September 11 attacks exists, this should too. In fact, deletionists of this article should be ashamed of themselves and get a life; my apologies to them. Gregorik (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - unimportant, usual diplomation; but a (reasonable) part of it should be placed in the main article. (Deletion here will be also very helpful for deletion of the content like this on the pl-wiki) Laforgue (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I don't like the idea of building a precedence for next articles describing events, which might create similar reactions. Death of country's officials (especially in tragic circumstances) always will cause international reaction and focusing our attention on so trivial part of the whole event reduces efforts, which should be concentrated on improving and updating the main article. I think that lack of reaction would be more notable in this situation and worth mentioning than mentioning every country, organisation, celebrity, sport association and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukasz Lukomski (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete per nominator, Sandstein, and others. The topic just isn't encyclopedic, in that it catalogs the predictable platitudes given by various officials in reaction to an event. Further, the article lacks reliable sources indicating the topic is notable. (The reliable sources in the article show the crash is a notable event, but not that the reaction to the event is notable or interesting in any way). It's very much a "dog bites man" kind of article. Fletcher (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Basically, a whole bunch of nations who express their condolences and, for many, their quotes. It would be far better to briefly mention these in the main article in prose than it would be in an indiscriminate matter like this. This stinks of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. –MuZemike 03:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The vast majority of the entries are entirely predictable and repetitive ("the monarch/president/prime minister sent condolences ..."). The comments are simply WP:MEMORIAL and add no value to Wikipedia. The response in Poland and Russia should be incorporated into the main article. The rest is listcruft. WWGB (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Maybe "International reactions" are repetitive but they are really important and relevant. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete predictable diplomacy Wizzy…☎ 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' I think the last time I saw this, it was on the page itself. DaL33T (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list is relevant in that it can help understanding the importance of the plane crash. Belgian man (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Who proposed this in the first place? If we merge this article with the main one then there will be a huge page strech from all the responses. This article is important because this accident shocked the entire world. This IS history and its a big part of Polish history. This is where all the support from the entire world should be kept. As a Pole, i feel that this is the right thing to do and i want to thank all the people that have helped us get through this tragedy. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a counselling service. Moreover, all of these responses are generated automatically; they do not come from the heart but from the machinations of diplomacy. Ericoides (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you are trying to deliberatly be offensive or it is just an accident, this is not a valid reason to delete the article, or any article for that matter. Your personal assessment of how diplomacy works, or whether the responses are genuine or not, is utterly irrelevant to this debate. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if you assumed good faith. I am pointing out what many other people have said; that these condolences are a matter of international protocol, rather than expressions of personal feelings. OpenFuture's remarks in Commentary 3 are on the money, as are the comments below regarding the page being comparable to a "DDR evening news programme". Of course it is a good reason to delete the article (the reason being that all of these types of pages are the same, and so, without any identity of their own, they don't deserve individual existence as pages). Ericoides (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is well referenced and covered by multiple independent sources worldwide as the references section indicates. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is deleted please copy and paste the "Official Mourning" section and "Other reactions" section to the main article first. Them pieces of info are noticable. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only the 2 sections I name above I found interesting; but the article is well referenced. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mixed views on this. Admittedly, this sort of article reads like something you would have seen on the old DDR evening news programme, sandwiched between a piece on the Young Communists' outing to a chemical plant and the latest fictional tonnage of barley produced. However, I do think the countries that declared official periods of mourning are worth a mention, as that is going a little further than the usual messages of condolence. Similarly, the special mass in Macedonia, and the lowering of flags at FIFA. On that basis I would say merge back into the main article, but it will need to be constantly patrolled to ensure it doesn't turn into the usual list of platitudinous letters issued. After all, everyone in Palau wants to make sure their country is mentioned up there with the United States! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Event warrants an "international response" page. Chesdovi (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this article, although perhaps not very much in the scope of Wikipedia, contains a lot of valid and useful information. If it is deleted that information should go somewhere at least. Is there another Wikimedia Foundation project that could take the article on? If not then I think it ought to be kept. Zell Faze (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no need for this page, but the information is encyclopedic and valuable. Merge it into an existing article (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information is worthless as can be (minor points in a minor matter). Unthinkable to devote much thought about starting a similar list in German wikipedia. Frankly, it's wacky. Devote your efforts to something deserving. Won't be very hard to find. Almost anything else is eligible. This article is not adding to wikipedias merits, on the contrary. WaldiR (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong delete. Who cares if the presidents of Angola, North Korea, or the European Central Bank sent their condolences? It's standard diplomatic practice to send condolences when there are disasters of this scale. Therefore, it might be noteworthy if some head of state did not send his condolences, but not that he did. Besides, the sheer trainspotting-like cruftiness of this article strikes me as tasteless considering its context. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am amazed by the number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT 'arguments' which have been given for deletion; that it is 'predictable', 'boring' diplomacy is of no relevance to keeping or deleting this article. It has been said that this type of articles is unencyclopedic, inappropriate to Wikipedia but we have plenty of articles of this type so it must not be the case, the format of the article should probably be revised but it's not a matter for this AFD; the question is whether the existence of this article is justified. The incident is highly exceptional, rare in recent history are cases where a president and several persons important to the governing of a country died in an incident, this has major national and international consequences; and the reaction to such events is directly relevant and clearly an encyclopedic subject. The notability of the subject is evident and the sole policy which could apply is WP:NOTNEWS, but it has not been demonstrated that the policy prevented its existence. And it does not, it is clear that the underlying event is durably notable, and this article is an important part of the coverage of the event, it is not 'routine news reporting'. While this could be covered in the article on the event, the article size guidelines suggest we split it in a separate article, so the existence of this article is justified and not prevented by any policy, and merge is not an option in this AFD for this reason too. Merging thus is a purely editorial matter in this case and should be discussed on the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could expand on this: "The notability of the subject is evident". Because I think it's pretty evident that it is *not* notable, and I have given multiple arguments both above and below that shows this. So maybe you could explain how it is notable that many countries issue their condolences in this disaster, when they give the exact same condolences to every single major disaster. What's notable about these condolences? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is the (international) response to the incident, which goes beyond condolences, even if the article is mostly made of that at the moment. That subject is notable in Wikipedia standard, as defined at Wikipedia:Notability: there are multiple reliable sources covering the responses to the crash. People's perception of the subject's notability in an informal sense as opposed to the sense formalized at WP:N is not relevant to this AFD. Cenarium (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cenarium, you may be amazed by the number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, but most "con" arguments actually do cite rules that are being violated, while the "pro" arguments, including yours, seem to rely on WP:ILIKEIT. Nobody doubts the incident is highly exceptional and that the response to it therefore could provide enough substantial information to justify an article in its own right. However, in its present state, the article contains next to nothing but generic list-cruft (president of [country X] expressed his condolences). Also, the argument that the main article is too long doesn't work here. The amount of information that would remain after the removal of list-cruft could easily be included in the main article. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in my arguments rely on ILIKEIT, I evaluated the article with respect to our policies and provided counter-arguments to the claims that it violated policy. On a personal note, I'm completely uninterested by this article; I've noted this AFD because of a disruptive IP which inserted prods/afds in several articles to make a point, which I've warned and since blocked. I was brought to comment here by the number of comments based on personal opinions rather than Wikipedia policy which were presented, in both sides. The article in its current state needs editing and it's possible that we can merge it back into the main article, but that is an editorial matter which should be discussed on the talk page, not in an AFD, and is not a reason for deletion. Cenarium (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]

(1) I tried to make a very nice compromise solution, keep the information, yet in the collapsable table so that it doesn't dominate the article if you don't click "show". For whatever reason someone again forcefully removed that (those people who have a motto that follows their actions - "Period. No one else may speak after me, my view is final and it must be that way or no way.") even though there were no opposing views on the talk page. Maybe this is usually not the right place to go into this kind of discussion but it would be nice to see if we can agree on this model and thus close this dispute in a nicer manner. (diff) - (version) --Avala (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this version. This makes a lot more sense than a separate article. However, why is Ireland sitting there by itself? Icedragz (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If the article becomes huge enough with the relevant in-browser notification, split would be more than welcome. WP:SPLIT sets the minimum split bound to >40 KB, this is not the case currently (same is true for 2010 Moscow Metro bombings and its spinoff Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings). On the other hand, we can wait. Brandmeister[t] 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapsable table is generally a work around only, and not a real solution. Due to the size problems, better simply to keep this as a separate article, just like the Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings one. prohlep (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(2) I propose a new category: reactions to major tragedies. prohlep (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the small matter of the size of the 116+ references that wont be hidden in the collapsable table. Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, the page hit 61 KB (61+37=98 KB), meets splitting threshold now. Brandmeister[t] 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather fond of Avala's proposal. It works rather nice IMHO IJA (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Category:International reactions to man-made disasters which now complements the previously existing Category:International responses to natural disasters. __meco (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Move the article over to Wikisource. --Kslotte (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...where I would likely immediately delete it as completely out of that project's scope. Jack Merridew 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Avoid creating such an absurd section in the 2010 Yushu earthquake article created today. Ericoides (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 1[edit]

On reviewing the above comments, I notice that at time of this entry, most of the editors (33) support keeping the article, eight suggest merging or transforming, and 10 propose deletion. Some of the 'keeps' are of course but a vote without a supporting comment.

Most of the ten deletion entry repeats more or less the same issue, what is opposed in great variety by the keeping entries. prohlep (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note of course the pointed statement that consensus is not gauged by votes. Logically speaking, the statement should be that consensus is not gained by votes alone. Those experienced in both logic and politics (at the macro and micro levels), and anyone who has ever tried to be a change agent in organisations or society, know that well-constructed arguments are often over-ruled by majorities even in the complete absence of a coherent counter-argument.

You are right: the majority in number of votes, i.e. the usual democracy is not a reliable source of truth. But we live in the age of democracy, when we are not ready to questionize our common dream of democracy. prohlep (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the current case, the counter-arguments vary, but it would be disingenous to describe them all as incoherent. Conversely, the delete arguments are not without merit, such as that the article essentially amounts to a memorium, and comprises a list of standard condolences and platitudinous comments which international heads of state etc feel compelled to issue for both international and domestic consumption (which is not to say that various heads of state are not genuinely moved by the tragedy. They almost certainly are, but to survive they must first and foremost be political animals - Aristotle by the way, called mankind a 'zoon politikoon', or political animal).

Inconsistency of the conter-arguments due to the fact, that there is a great variety of ways, how to show, why better not to delete the article. In other words: there are quite a few, mutually inconsistent ways, how the content in question can be keeped. If we choose one of these ways, then that one way will not be inconsistent. prohlep (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, this last point itself points to the basis for a 'keep for now' argument, which goes something like this:

International events of this nature have multiple facets. For example, the facets of mourning, both nationally and internationally, and the facets of politics, also both nationally and internationally. Statements by heads of government etc are almost never without the context of political consumption, both at the international level, and the national level. This latter is typically the most important for the person making the statement, as it is the local population that must first and foremost be convinced or controlled for a person or persons to stay in power.

Among the 'keep' arguments, those pertaining to the fact that it is just too soon seem to have some merit. The event's sequelae have yet to unfold, and may yet feedback into this article. Wotnow (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 2[edit]

I have just read throu all the more than hundred items in the article.

It yields an interesting picture, how wide spread the polish diaspore in the world is.

And in addition to this, that how widely the polish origin is accepted by non-polish people.

This article documents the relation of polish people with the others.

Yet an other reason to keep this particular "international reactions" article.

prohlep (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prohlep's comments are exactly why this article needs to be kept. International response (extent of condolences, countries involved) provides a unique view of the world via Poland that has not been documented. At face value, the the repetition of canned statements of concern may seem droll, but important balances of power are hidden amongst the expressions of grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcrowle (talk • contribs) — Edcrowle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I find that entirely unconvincing (the Polish diaspora stuff); the reaction would have been much the same had it been the Czech, Slovak or Romanian president. It's called diplomacy. Moreover, these lists are dangerous precisely because they are not exhaustive. Where are Monaco and Liechtenstein? Did the news not reach them? Were they not bothered? Are they going to feel embarrassed by not being mentioned here? These sorts of lists are so contrived that it wouldn't be too absurd simply to create a template with a list of all the countries in the world with their pretty flags followed by the words, 'The President expressed his heartfelt sorrow/sent his condolences/was outraged by/is keeping up to date with developments', and then simply keep the phrase used and delete the others. But much better not to create them in the first place. Ericoides (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Commentary 3[edit]

Without cheating, can you tell which article each comment comes from, or which country? 

* President X sent a telegram and expressed his deepest condolences.
* The President, X sent a telegram voicing his condolences.
* President X condemned the attacks, offered condolences to the families of the dead, and expressed smypathy for the injured.
* President X condemned the blasts, calling them dishonorable and recreant.

How is any of this notable in any way? Articles with international responses can be meaningful, like the one for 9/11. Articles that lists standard international condolences from one country to another is not. International reaction to the 2009 Victorian bushfires should be deleted, and International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash as well. Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings should be cleaned up (and maybe merged). Same thing for Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particular case in question has distinguising features.

  • Do not mix 9/11 here! That is a different category, like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and other cities where huge number of innocent citizens were killed on the base of a carefully developed attack plan. 9/11 is not an accident, like the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash.
  • The crash in question wanished significant fraction of the leadership: administrative, monetary, polytical, etc. It has a nontrivial impact on the future. Hence it is interesting, how the diverse countries react on it.
  • It is also interesting, that there was no reaction at all on the reason of the crash. Why? At least one of the passangers was a victim of himself/herself. This is clear from the partial information available by now.

prohlep (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 4[edit]

The mess that these pages always turn into is now forming very nicely in the 2010 Yushu earthquake page. See Talk:2010_Yushu_earthquake. Surely it would be better simply not to have these sections/pages (or have definite policy guidelines) rather than go through this pointless exercise every time? Ericoides (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary 5[edit]

I believe that most would agree that this is an unprecedented and unique tragedy with profound international ramifications. Observing and noticing such display of good will pouring in from all over the world will do us all some good. While the article could perhaps use some help, it should most definitely stay. It really doesn't matter if it was about the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, or some other nation. I would naturally said yes as well. It happened to Poland, so it is about Poland. None of this is driven by any conspiracy theories or underhandedness of any type. Like I said, reading through this list may do us all some good. Please keep it. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a place of mourning or making shrines to people. If you want to collect all the condoleances on a web page to help you deal with the emotions of the accident, then that's all well and good. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not, but it is an important part of the record. I don't believe you would have a problem with preserving historic record of this incident? And this would certainly qualify as such. I am sure, you are not suggesting that. While people express their grief and emotions in all sorts of ways, this is, above all, a record of that tragic incident that should be preserved. Some years from now someone will visit Wiki searching for international response to this incident, and they will find it here, on Wiki. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also not an archive. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that all of these condolences messages sent by HEADS OF STATE, PARLIAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL BODIES, ETC are made up, or forged, and that by including their content on Wiki we are contributing to some sort of dubious falsification? Why does it trouble you? These appear to be genuine expressions of sympathy, and nothing else. This is an unprecedented, unique, and one-of-a-kind incident with profound international ramifications. There is no precedent against which this particular tragedy can be gauged - and it is exactly what what makes it very unique. Are you talking about storing and / or archiving bytes or bites, or about providing meaningful and verifiable RECORD about this tragic incident. You know, the word "archive" has many, many meanings. One of them is PRESERVATION OF FACTS, and I'd hope that you are not suggesting that such expressions of sympathy, issued by such great number of nations are anything other than what Wiki itself defines as verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what is the difference between unique and very, very unique? 86.186.143.198 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Большое спасибо! Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash&oldid=1137933119"