Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack

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.

]

Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The existence of these articles, "Aftermath of the 2021 US Capitol attack" and "Criminal charges brought in the 2021 US Capitol attack", especially as splits from the main article "2021 United States Capitol attack", constitute

Additionally, until I acted on it, the "criminal charges" sub-article didn't even have a link to the main "2021 US Capitol attack" article in the lede section. (See this version from a couple of days ago: [1] )

I am also nominating the following related pages (reasoning described above)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If merge is the most plausible outcome, but the OP admits that it should not be merged because the main article is large enough, then it seems we are following
  WP:ARTICLESIZE perfectly. While due/undue conversations can certainly be had about some small portion of the material in the sub-articles, it's clear from even just a cursory glance that there's quite a bit of information that is due, and was split off for size reasons in the parent article. What content is due/undue is a consideration that can take place through normal discussion/editing processes on the talk pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Just noting that I was about to subscribe to Alalch Emis' view that perhaps the aftermath article should go, but the continued editing has moved me back to believing that any DUE concerns can be handled through normal editorial processes. Basically, no change in my !vote overall, but I agree with Alalch Emis that the aftermath section of the main article, and the subarticle itself, likely need more work - but it's moving in the right direction. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Argument given in deletion proposal is not persuasive. Why is it - all of it - UNDUE, exactly? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep no valid reason for deletion Feoffer (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not seeing any good reason for deletion. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The aftermath article is certainly discussing relevant aspects that would not all fit into the
  2021 United States Capitol attack. I don't really think this article is giving "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", as the aftermath has brought an impeachment trial, many investigations, arrests, and more. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I thank the nominator for applying related links to the "main" article, but disagree that these pages should be deleted, they not serving as forks but rather as subpages to an overlong main page. Since several threads have appeared on
  Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack discussing the merits of "splitting" the mainpage, it's heartening to see such a variety of contributors I see there encouraging a keep outcome of what I view as subpages here. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. As Berchanhimez said, we can discuss whether some content of the articles is
  WP:RS have covered the criminal charges and are still publishing new reports every day. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  Donald Trump on social media/ were started and developed, all of them now in better shape than the corresponding sections of the aftermath article.

  The aftermath article now simply duplicates the scope of these main articles, that cover quite discrete, natural, and recognizable topics such as Second impeachment of Donald Trump – that's actually something someone will look for independently, as opposed to an "aftermath of x" article.

  In other words, the aftermath article is an intermediate level of topic coverage in terms of specificity, so that there are three levels (the attack article - the intermediate aftermath article which is a sort of a compilation of topics - the actual articles on the topics of the aftermath), but there should be two levels (the attack article - the actual articles...). There is no reason for this intermediate level anymore, it serves no purpose. Note that this rationale is completely independent from the nominator's. Also, I know that there is ample precedent for "aftermath of x" articles, such as the aftermath of 9/11, but where possible, these should still be avoided IMO — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I changed my vote after a related discussion

WP:DUE concerns, in my view. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - per the multiple discussions and consensuses (consensi?) reached at
  Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack regarding splitting the original article. There is far too much information contained here to be easily merged back into an already lengthy main article, and current news reports/sources are more focused on the aftermath (arrests, commission, etc.) than the original event itself. Maybe in a few years, once this has all settled down, we can condense and re-organize all of the (then historical) content, but not now. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Donald Trump on social media etc. It's much better to link only to those specific articles from the parent article's Aftermath section directly (and that section will always exist in some form), and eschew any intermediate steps, that have only led to duplication of content, and difficulties in maintaining and updating all of it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - There is no non-partisan or non-frivolous reason that I can come up with that would allow me to look at the extent of the coverage of this topic and think that we are giving it undue weight. Additionally, the claim in the proposal seems to be that the main article is too long for this content to be merged back into, but keeping it as a separate article makes it biased. This is circular logic, and is not cohesive with any actual guidelines of notability or verifiability. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid
  WP:Content Forking as the main article is too long as is and the important aspects of the January 6 attack are too much for one article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As long as the parent article has an Aftermath section, and it always will in some form, it's a

WP:REDUNDANTFORK, because the actual topics of the aftermath are covered in detail in relevant specific articles. Links to all those articles should be made (and already mostly are) in the attack article - so why should someone read two versions on the impeachment, one in the aftermath article, and another in the impeachment article? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• @

  WP:SUMMARYSTYLE-type manner. You read the overview in one article, and then you can hop into the dedicated article to read more about the subject in greater detail if you are interested. You can argue whether or not that has happened here, but that is generally the way things should go. They aren't supposed to be viewed as seperate versions of the same article is what I'm saying. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@MJL: Agreed, but in this case we have the summary in the parent article, and the link is directly to the dedicated stuff. A summary can be just one or two sentences, to give you the picture. It doesn't have be an intermediate version (how would you even get to read it when the parent article links directly to where it should). I think those intermediate summaries are generally not very good. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets notability as perhaps the largest FBI investigation in history. TFD (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about List of criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, and this article consists of a bulleted list of the type of charge, followed by how many people were charged/arrested/prosecuted, and names of any notable people, and that's about it. We don't have to go into extended drama about each manhunt and post on Gab or MySpace or whatever. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Such a page would probably more accessible than

Talk:Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Snow keep. This nomination is quite odd. Moncrief (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It just doesn't make sense to delete this. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course - this is exactly how summary style is supposed to function. We don't give undue weight in the main article by having separate articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid
  Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Revocation of Trump honorary degrees, contracts, and other connections section).

  All in all, I don't think deleting this is the right way to go. I think further editing to improve the quality at all three levels is the best way to improve the encyclopaedia as a whole. TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In my opinion, the reasoning "This content belongs on Wikipedia but not on a main article because it would be UNDUE there", is one of the things that leads to bias on this split-off type of article. Content either belongs on Wikipedia in compliance with policies, or it doesn't (or the policy[ies] needs to be changed). 23:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    • I get what you're saying and I agree in a lot of cases (especially when it comes to those horrible flag salad "reactions to [event]" articles...), but I don't think it applies here. In this case, I wouldn't have minded a brief mention at the main article if it weren't already so long. This is the basic idea behind
      WP:DUE on the main World War II article, but are perfectly reasonable to mention at one of the sub-articles such as Aftermath of World War II or Eastern Front (World War II). TompaDompa (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete
  wp:blp in that we are having material about very unimportant people dealing to their crimes when they have not been convicted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Slatersteven: deletion is a pretty extreme solution to BLP concerns for criminal allegations stemming from a high-profile event such as this one. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good faith effort to reduce the size of a
  WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. We should support editors when they try to tackle shortening large articles. Shortening long articles greatly increases readability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I think there's been a misunderstanding. The words "undue weight" have two different meanings. One is defined in
  WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." As far as I can tell, this debate is actually about "undue weight" in the sense of "minor aspects" (WP:PROPORTION), not in the sense of "minority views" (WP:UNDUE). — Chrisahn (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Plenty of sourcing in both articles, indicating the extensive, ongoing coverage of these aspects of the main event that make them reasonable content forks and that negates the OP's nomination reasoning of "undue". VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (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.