- International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closure result given as "merge". I believe that it should have been closed as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. The merge of this article into the parent article has resulted in its deletion from the parent article, which was not what was decided at AfD. Closing editor is of the opinion that the closure result was correct. Discussion has taken place at Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 | There was a recent discussion of the scope of DRV for reviewing merges.link This discussion should focus on the limited scope of whether the closing admin correctly judged the consensus as merge. Other comments may be better directed to the talk page. |
- Relist so that further input may be obtained, and that the article may be improved by removing various forms of cruft, such as flagcruft. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I believe there was little support for merging this back. I also think the delete arguments far outweighed the keep arguments, and believe the correct outcome here is to delete this. I'm fine with a transwiki, as I suggested to list.wikia.com, but don't believe it appropriate to Wikisource (way out of scope) or Wikiquote (which is focused on quotes in works or by individuals, not collections re an event). A relist may be inevitable but will fursur be another huge bickerfest. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? - this was closed 2 (two) days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. I made a few comparisons at WP:ANI for those ignorant of AfD decisions users who are dissenting - just like with close result elections, those who lost can assemble a crowd but it doesn't mean that they have that narrow majority that the other side has (look at Italy, many huge protests involving millions of people but then the same ruling party wins again). This is like going to a polling station day after the election if you don't like the results to cast your vote and while doing that you also consider that this "vote" of yours is somehow able to override whatever was decided in a serious process of elections yesterday. So, accept that the decision of AfD was to merge this article into the article after a very very lengthy (65kb) discussion and that it was made two days ago. You can start this review over and over again hoping that other users will get bored and that you will manage to delete it but this is not the fair play.--Avala (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At DRV, for technical reasons there's a convention that we don't normally overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or a "no consensus". (It's because all three outcomes are effectively the same:- the article history is retained. In other words the redirect can be turned back into an article by any editor, using the standard WP:BRD technique, so a deletion review is unnecessary and the decision can be made on the redirect's talk page.) I do agree with Mjroots that that charlie foxtrot of a "debate" would probably better have been closed as "no consensus".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, DRV is not an area I am familiar with. This may be an occasion where WP:IAR is applied in order for a fuller discussion to take place. As I understand it, those who have already made their contribution to the previous AfD debate do not get a second bite of the cherry. New eyes and fresh input to the discussion is the aim of a relist. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I must say again that doing that two days after the lengthy AfD makes no sense. Especially when it was such a difficult decision to make that requiered going through so many arguments. All this because some users "can't act like adults and respect the outcome of the Afd".--Avala (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with S Marshall. This is not a convention, but rather it is an unusual request. AfDs were not in the past considered capable to mandate merges, especially in contested cases. An AfD may well produce evidence for consensus to merge, but that is a different thing. Here, we have an administrative decision to mandate a merge, and S. Marshall suggests WP:BRD to undo the merge. This is a mistake. The merge should not happen by default. If there is disagreement, aka no consensus, then the articles should remain separate (for now). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Nonsense? The AFD closer said "The result was merge...". The article currently has a tag at the top that says "The debate was closed on 17 April 2010 with a consensus to merge". These statements are past tense and sound as definitive as any ever do. Your suggestion that the merge can be undone by a standard WP:BRD process is to accept that the merge is a fait accompli. Under BRD, the unmerge edit is trumped by the first reversion of it. The articles should be separate until there is a consensus to merge (which is not evident at the AfD). An AfD closer should not be allowed to (appear to) mandate an editorial decision. In this close, the closer appears to mandate a merge, and the text sounds like the decision is made. This is why the close needs to be overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I certainly don't accept the merge as a fait accompli! I understand the "merge" closure to mean "keep" with a recommendation to merge. If it was a fait accompli, the closing admin would perform the merge on closure.
I think that you and I agree that the merge is not enforceable except by the usual talk page consensus route, and what we're actually disagreeing about is whether it's necessary to change the closing admin's choice of words.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, by "Overturn", I mean the close should be modified to "The result was
merge to no consensus." ... "merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed and discussion on a merger should continue on the talk page." or similar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. There needs to be an overall Rfc on the issue of reaction articles, and until then, keeping this content out of the way in a separate article is the only way to proceed to stop the juvenile edit warring and ACRONYM soup style debating the merge decision precipitated. Discussing a merge has rapidly turned into a waste of time and led to edit warring over a Main Page linked article. Inexcusible. What little consensus to merge that might have existed in the Afd has basically been spat on by the people who want to ignore the merge outcome, and give everyone else the finger. If they can't get over themselves and demonstrate they are willing to find a plausible way forward in this content dispute, that actually addresses the fact that there is not actually currently a consensus for wholesale deletion of this kind of information, then they can go and play in someone else's sandbox. I don't happen to think these laundry lists should be here either, but picking this particular article at this particular time to have that debate was simply a wrongheaded idea all round, it was only ever going to end in a train wreck, you only had to look at past Afd's and the scale of this event to know that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closer: note that the discussion was closed as merge, but included a stipulation that the international response be "sufficiently condensed". The idea was that removing all of the news replications would create an article of a suitable merge size. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not clear for the keepers, who interpreted the closer as keeping all the data. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close, policy-based consensus is that the list of formulaic "me too" messages from half the governments on the planet is not an encyclopaedic topic in its own right. Not liking the subsequent content edits after (s)merging does not invalidate the close. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if that were remotely true, the only right closure would have been delete, because it's not a valid redirect and we don't keep the histories of unencyclopoedic topics. The closure was merge, not delete and redirect, or even simply redirect. There was a reason for that which the closer has already explained about four times at my count now, and the only 'not liking' going on here is from the people who don't have a clue what that difference is, insist on NOTHEARING the closer, and want to pretend the outcome was delete. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual problem here is that we don't all agree on what "merge" means. Some think it means you must copypaste the entire content; some think you only have to copypaste some content; still others think you don't have to copypaste at all, just condense and rephrase the information. Whatever the meaning, the decision is an editorial one. Administrators may close an AfD as merge, but it is up to editorial process to decide how to best do that. On the issue raised here, S Marshall is correct. Overturning this AfD to no consensus is a waste of time because the content can still be merged. A no consensus closure means exactly that: no consensus for anything and no consensus against anything. The default to keep only occurs because that's the only way to go—it does not mean the article has to remain. Even looking at the AfD, though, merge was the correct closure. So there is nothing at all actionable here; go back to the talk page and work the merge out. ÷seresin 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close The AfD got enough attention the first time around, but it's completely infeasible to think that all of that content -- flags and quotes from, what, 100 world leaders? -- should be placed in the main article. As the closing admin said, merge, after condensing the content. It goes without saying that "condensing" does not mean "put in a collapsible box". -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the vapid keeps were rightly given less weight. This is like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama condolences; condolences by heads of state for tragedies is so commonplace as to be not newsworthy. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I want to say keep, because such articles can be of great encyclopaedic value, however, this one is more of a list of people and countries who expressed their condolences, as they would with such a horrific event. If it were expanded and a significant amount of prose was added which explained the international repercussions of this event, I would be inclined to say it could function well as a standalone article if enough information exists to build a well-structured article. Merging would also be a viable option, imho. While, if expanded and improved, this could be sustainable article, as it is though, I agree with Arbitrarily above, it would be better trimmed and merged. I think a relist would be in order to allow the possibilities of a merge to thrashed out fully and to allow for improvement of the article because it seems that nobody is satisfied by the status quo. My support of relisting, however, should not be seen as a criticism of Arbitrarily's close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that as it stands, this article is longer than the parent article - it will need a LOT of creative trimming to get it down to a sensible length to merge back in while keeping what we do add properly referenced - and that ignores any problems with getting everybody to accept the Merge.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question how is the closure result of merge acceptable given the original consensus of split from the main article? - see discussion at talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash/Archive_1#International_response Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - The separate article has no rationalization, and some of the data, namely the list of countries with official mourning, is notable. The article should be as it stands now with the list of condolences removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- per Seresin, who said it well. Reyk YO! 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The content itself fails notability guidelines. The consensus of the community has been carried out, and the article is (mostly) condensed. As several users have discussed, transferring the word-for-word content to another wiki project or moving the content off-wiki is a viable option to appease the dissenters. --N419BH (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: relist or keep as no consensus There is no precedent for AfD to force content onto an article from which it has been excluded by consensus. Merge is not a standard outcome – anyone coming to AfD asking for a merge would have the discussion closed as out of scope – and is only tolerated under IAR when it resolves problems, not when it relights problems which had already been resolved by consensus. The closer correctly noted that the the list would have to be trimmed before merger, but is that not simply a way to hide a major delete when there was no obvious consensus? Of course, and predictably, the trimming was not done and the list was reinserted verbatim, creating a huge list of policy problems on an article which is currently linked from the Main Page and an edit war which ended in full protection. If the content is non-notable, it should be deleted; if it is notable it should be kept as a separate list. Physchim62 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus for merger and so the close was improper, seeming to impose a solution rather than recording the outcome of the discussion. This was contrary to WP:DGFA as it did not respect the judgement and feelings of the contributors to the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I'm not sure what the people who say "merge is not a standard outcome" are thinking. It's a very standard outcome, and has been viewed as more or less binding in the past. Failure to selectively merge in a reasonable time after a merge AfD outcome is grounds to simply copy and paste one article on the end of another to get the ball rolling. Gigs (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the page will be merged in the sense of putting all the information in a collapsed table then I think merging is a good idea, but if merging means doubling the length of the main page I would favour the no-consensus route of defaulting to keep and opening a general discussion about this type of article, of which there are many. Weakopedia (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC there was in no way consensus for anything. I don't personally see the value in the article, but A) it meets WP:N and B) there was no consensus. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the closer's rationale was that many of the "keeps" were very weak; as more of those are discounted, the scales tip towards the side of the decision that was given. Looking through the "it's referenced", "it's interesting" type of opinions given at the time, I find it hard to disagree with the closer. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's referenced" when it _is_ referenced, is a pretty solid argument really. Is this a NOTNEWS thing? Something this significant (the crash) isn't and spin out articles are reasonable when well sourced ("it's sourced"). I don't like this type of article and would probably !vote to delete them in general (though I'd not start with something so recent). But that view certainly doesn't seem to have consensus, at least with respect to this article. Hobit (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid argument for what? That something is referenced is no reason at all to keep it. Yes WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NOTABOLITY, etc, etc, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, was anyone arguing that it wasn't referenced? Being referenced isn't the be all and end all of determining the worth of an article. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I could see the debate came down to an open question of should we have this type of article. The nom basically stated, without argument that it was NOTNEWS, unencyclopedic, and a memorial. The folks on the other side argued it was notable. The side arguing for deletion made a vague wave toward policies, but on the whole didn't explain why those issues applied. Face it, WP:N has the advantage of being fairly clear cut (multiple reliable sources exist or they don't and the fuzzy line is fairly small). Things like "unencyclopedic" are, by and large, a matter of opinion. Here the opinion was that it was worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I said, I personally don't think this article is a good idea but A) I don't see anything looking like a consensus to delete and B) Honestly deleting it at this point is potentially hurtful and bad for Wikipedia. Wait a few months or start with the similar 9/11 page or some other US-based one. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is actually a solid argument when there is risk of cultural bias or when there isn't a clear line being crossed and it thus isn't clear that the "OTHERSTUFF" should also go. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "vague" with the links to the NUMEROUS policies that the list of condolences breaks? How it is vague? Each one of these policy breaks are by itself reason enough to delete it. However, the claim that it *is* notable is very vague. How is it notable that everyone says exactly the same thing? That a country offers condolences in a disaster is standard fare, how is that notable? Nobody has ever even *attempted* to answer that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's vague because people are simply stating an opinion. "delete per NOTMEMORIAL" says nothing other than the person feels it's a memorial. Delete as encyclopedic says nothing other than the person feels the topic isn't encyclopedic. Keep as its sourcing meets WP:N is, in this case, a black-and-white truth. Given that the majority felt inclusion was proper and the only reasons to delete are based on opinions, I think deletion is clearly inappropriate. Just because you, or the closer, agree with those opinions isn't a valid reason to delete. WP:MEMORIAL doesn't clearly apply, and "not encyclopedic" is like saying "IDONTLIKEIT". Hobit (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, you've got it exactly backwards. The policies in question are not vague or emotional, the repeated claim that it's notable comes without argumentation whatsoever, and is obviously based on emotion/opinion and nothing else. Nobody has been able to explain *how* it's notable, while we have been able to explain exactly how it breaks these policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, as I say, I see it exactly the other way around. So let me do notable, and you explain how it breaks these policies. Mine's easy. It's notable because it vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. There are a large (dare I say massive) number of independent, reliable sources about this topic. Therefor it is presumed notable. I think the article sources speak for themselves, but I can enumerate them if you feel that's needed. Certainly it is only presumed notable, but that's all the notability guidelines can do. Now, could you show exactly how this breaks the policies in question without using opinions like "it's a memorial" and "it's not encyclopedic"? Neither of those policies provide an objective way of concluding when such a thing is true (and I for one, along with a significant majority of the AfD seem to think they don't apply). NOTNEWS and it's related hangers-on actually do (short burst of news coverage) but I don't see how that applies here. Hobit (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by your interpretation of notability. For every newsworthy topic T you could create a separate article R about the reaction or response to T consisting of various sourced quotes about T. But surely for article R to have notability, there must be reliable sources commenting not on T but on R itself, that is, commenting about the reaction to topic T. And the amount of content we tolerate in article R would surely be proportionate to the amount of sourced commentary available about R, correct? Fletcher (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit: It's notable because it vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. - That's a tautology, and not an argument or explanation. You are just saying it's notable because it's notable. There are a large (dare I say massive) number of independent, reliable sources about this topic. Therefor it is presumed notable. - This is not a discussion about the crash, but the list of condolences. To claim that the list of condolences has WP:N and therefore should have it's own article you must find multiple independent sources for that list of condolences. Note, not one source per condolence, multiple independent sources that list many of these condolences. I guess multiple independent sources per condolence would work too. So you see how insane that is? It doesn't work. This list of condolences in NOT NOTABLE. Hence, it should NOT have it's own article. Hence the merge was the correct decision. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's notable because it' vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. That's not a tautology for the record, it's more along the lines of "7 is a prime number because it has no integer divisors other than 1". That's simply a true statement. I disagree with your sourcing requirements--as long as each one has a reliable source, I'm fine. The topic-as-a-whole is clearly notable and each element of the list is sourced, and that seems to be the general inclusion guideline for lists. Else we'd not have lists of coaches for certain sports teams (many of which are featured) and the like... Hobit (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a tautology. You do not explain *how* it's notable, you just repeat your claim that it is. You have no argument. And I'm sure *you* are fine, but we are now discussing the fulfillment of Wikpedia Policy, and it's not fulfilled. The topic as a whole is clearly notable and has it's own article. Now we are discussing the "international reaction" article and more specifically the list of condolences. Your continued failure to understand the difference completely invalidates your argumentation as you clearly haven't read and understood WP:NOTABILITY. It's about if a topic is notable enough to have a separate article or not. You provide no argument for that except a baseless claim that it does which you are unable to back up. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think you read WP:N wrongly. The subject is (clearly) notable in that sense, since it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion to consider though, as the policy states (WP:GNG, fifth point 'presumed': "[notability] establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.", but the later is disctinct from notability considerations. Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes of course. And this topic both do NOT have notability, as you will not find multiple independent sources on "international reactions" as a whole, nor each reaction separately, AND it breaks several other policies, yes. So the notability failure means there should not be a separate article, so the merge was correct. The other policies means that the list of condolences should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'm inclined to the view that if there is no consensus to keep an article, and there would be a consensus to merge or delete but for the split of opinions between merge and delete, a merge is the appropriate close. That is because there is a clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, and a merge is the least drastic way of implementing that consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no consensus). Merge was not the consensus result of the discussion. In fact, I see insufficient discussion or consensus building given the widely differing opinions offered. Anyway, merging is an editorial decision, and a one-week AfD is a poor way to make editorial decisions, especially for such a fresh topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to non-consensus I can see perfectly good arguments in several different directions, and since they're more a matter of article style than policy, I cant really choose between them--and neither could the community. When that happens, there's nothing to do but admit the impasse and se if the matter becomes clearer going forward. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge. If an AfD just involved counting "votes", then this would have resulted in a "keep". But AfDs don't just involve counting "votes"; they also involve which side has the better policy-based arguments. I believe that the delete and merge supporters had better policy-based arguments in this case. In particular, much of the content of the article consists of a repetitive listing stating that one president or prime minister after another sent their condolences, with some quotes from such statements, but substantially all having the same tone and general idea. Basically, this kind of list violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a collection of news reports. I would recommend that the list of countries that declared official days of mourning be slightly merged into the main article, and that is all that mainly needs to be merged. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Afd proved anything, it's that people really don't undertsand MEMORIAL. It states, "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Now, forgetting the rather pointless 'other', I very much doubt anybody involved in creating the article, was a friend, relative or acquaintance of anybody on the plane, and I finds it quite ludicrous to ascribe the wish to memorialise as the motive of all those editors. Quite bizarre. MickMacNee (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that the deceased were probably not friends, relatives, or acquaintances of the editors who wrote this article. But when I see an article that reads like this:
- President of Abkhazia, Sergei Bagapsh expressed his condolences to the citizens of Poland.
- Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his deep sorrow and condolence over the sudden death of Polish President and his entourage on Saturday.
- Albanian President Bamir Topi expressed his deep sorrow for the loss of President Kaczyński. Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, Parliament Speaker Jozefina Topalli and opposition leader Edi Rama also sent their condolences to the Polish People.
- ... well, it looks like a memorial to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, 'looks like'. Much like half the edits people label as vandalism just 'looks like' WP:VANDALISM, but surprisingly, isn't. Never just assume others see what you see if the cited policy wording doesn't back it up. That approach leads to outcomes like this related Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to "ascribe" it, the wish to make a memorial was explicitly stated by many keepers, although they didn't use the word memorial, but that's what they were proposing. Quotes:
- "I think it will help future readers get a better perspective on this tragedy. "
- "International responses are important for an historical basis"
- "this was a major disaster for Poland and the international community."
- "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"
- You may not have used that argument, but many others did. And as noted, the only other argument was WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt anyone reads those statements as saying 'keep, its a memorial' as their primary meaning. Plenty of them are appeals to several of the ACRONYMS you keep throwing out to support your arguments, ironically. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, it's more or less impossible to read those statements as any other way, which I'm sure you are well aware of. And none of them are appeals to any of the policies that I and others here is referring to, for the simple and obvious reason that a list of condolences *breaks* those policies. Which is why we bring them up, you see. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the WP:MEMORIAL policy indicates that it relates to deaths which are not notable and is no bar to content about deaths which are notable. The deaths in this case, the specific condolences and the more general reaction are all clearly notable and so there is no trace of a policy problem. Your objection seems to be either a misunderstanding of the policy or a different issue - that you don't think condolences belong here. That is a different argument which is usually considered an argument to avoid at AFD - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:UNENCYC. It seems telling that the page which better fits the usual format of a public memorial - List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash - got a snow keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this isn't about the article or the deaths, which are clearly notable, but about the condolences, and those are NOT notable. But yes WP:MEMORIAL is just a special case of WP:NOTABILITY in general. Your comment about the list of casualties makes me wonder if you even know what a memorial is or it's purpose. a list of casualties (which you *admit* are notable) is not a memorial. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the condolences is a matter of fact which is proven by the numerous indepedent and reliable sources. And, as another matter of plain fact, condolences are not a memorial - they are an expression of sympathy for the living. A public memorial is commonly a list of names of the deceased. If you want to go after memorials then your target should be List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a matter of fact. Condolences from heads of state are boilerplate expressions of sympathy, expressed for tragedies great and small. There is really little notable about what amounts to a routine governmental press release. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pah. We could delete it today and I bet you couldn't even come close to accurately, or even vaguely, recreating what was said by who, if the task were simply left to your apparently magical powers of prediction. It may or may not be appropriate content for Wikipedia, with NOTNEWS actually being the only vaguely plausible argument out of the many irrelevances being chucked around, but thankfully readers would not have to resort to their own magical powers of prediction to recreate the material if they wanted to, as plenty of sources have recorded this information for the historical record, and it is simply laughable that some people here would have you believe they only do so simply to create 'memorials'. It's a laughable idea. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I could accurately recreate it because everybody said the same thing: They all expressed their condolences. Small changes in the wording is not significant or notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This assertion is about as believable as everything else you've said on the topic. MickMacNee (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Especially in the light of that I just did it. It's not rocket science. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (to no consensus or relist, I don't care). The "article" is silly as it is. Someone might theoretically turn it into something reasonable, but that's unlikely to happen. The only thing that matters is that the mess is swept under the carpet until its proponents cool down and it can get deleted or just zero-merged. Hans Adler 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just in case this is closed by a bureaucratically-minded person: The technical reason for overturning is of course that hardly anybody was for merging, and merging was not (in this case) a compromise between keeping and deleting. Therefore the closer simply closed per their own opinion, and it needs to be overturned for that reason. Hans Adler 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actions like this are what is driving people away from Wikipedia. There was no consensus in the deletion discussion for deleting or merging. Other similiar articles have not been deleted. Karun1234 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. Merging was a distant third place, and the recommendations were too divergent for a compromise to be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge, with clarification that a large compilation of repetitive quotations is not part of Wikipedia's mission, and that a small summary of the reaction is a better way of representing the material. The trouble with the original closing was that it was not clear enough to people what should occur, with the result that someone copied the entire table to the main article, and subsequent edit warring. Fletcher (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - No Consensus - AFD is not the place to mandate merges. That happens on talk pages. - hahnchen 13:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, so keep here. AFD should determine whether an article should be kept or deleted/redirected. Merging is an editorial matter which is - rather should be - out of AfD's scope. There should probably be a general discussion (again) on Afd's scope because it's still unclear and disputed. I explicitly reject the idea of merging as middle ground and even as a possible conclusion, because merging is an editorial matter for which AfD is not adapted at all; merging requires editing, often discussion, etc, while AfD should be a definitive, bright-line binary decision between keeping and deleting/redirecting; moreover in this case merging had not been specifically discussed so the closure was insufficiently supported by the discussion. There is a widespread confusion between merging and redirecting as afd conclusions too: AFD should determine if there is consensus or overriding policy reason to delete an article or if appropriate redirect it; and really a conclusion of redirection should be viewed similarly as one of deletion; and if there is no consensus or overriding policy reason for doing this, it should be kept. It may be that the article would be better off merged in another article, but's it's not in AFD's scope and should be discussed on talk pages. On the other hand, if consensus is found for redirection, it should be firm and only appealable at DRV as with deletions, but clearly there were no consensus for redirection here. Also, even if in an outcome of redirection, the target of the redirect may at times have some content of the article merged in, this is independent of AFD, even if a 'grace period' is given to merge the content. Now the idea has been put forward at times to allow admins to make merge decisions at afd which are reviewable on talk pages or subject to BRD, but I feel that this adds more confusion to an often contentious, convoluted area which needs clarification, not more confusion; I've seen cases where merge closures have result in massive disputes (in articles on fiction especially), so I feel this kind of conclusions should not be allowed and overturned when found. In short, no consensus or overriding policy reason for deletion or redirection, and not even consensus for the out-of-afd-scope-outcome 'merge', therefore overturn to keep; and discuss if a merge is the way to go on talk. Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
