Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Traintalk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing
AfDs for this article:
- Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The
WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete as not much to write about with limited sources. This is clearly a WP:QUOTEFARM and as per precedent set by recent discussion this is not much valuable on WP now. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete
Merge (selectively, the more notable ones) into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. These "reactions" articles serve a purpose in "current event mode" (this directs the "reaction" news flow off of the main article) or in the case of truly mega events (which can have very large articles, in which case sub-articles make sense). In this case, the main article isn't very long (18K bytes) - and there is no need for a separate "reactions" article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like the most significant reactions are in the main article in any event - so I'm striking the merge vote, though it might be possible to selectively merge a few additional bits.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*Keep & WP:GNG. See: CBC News, Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, Catholic Herald, Daily Bruin, DAWN, Metro News, PCP. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Mfarazbaig how do seperate reactions pass GNG; they must all be judge, well, separately. Anyways, my rationale quite thoroughly explains why these quote farms are not for the encyclopedia. I realize you are part of the Pakistan WikiProject but you must handle this case objectively. And please understand no rational admin will close this prematurely simply because you don't like the nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- an WP:LISTN. Compare with:
- K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: a request to merge this article into Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Merge requests, but I won't put merger tags on the articles for the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Comment Note that nominator made 15 posts in the previous nomination, and waited one day less than the recommended two months before renominating. From WP:Renominating for deletion, oldid=765442501:
- ====Advice on renominating====
When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.
Be warned that some consider renominations to be
gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.
- Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unscintillating be warned, casting aspersions is just as disruptive as any illusionary scenario where I am supposedly trying to game any system. "Precedence" was the main point, as non-policy based as it is, by keep voters in the previous discussion. If you read my re-nomination statement, I address this and more -- quite thoroughly. This "advice" was not even marginally relevant to me, and I'm sorry but your comments at AFD have been head-scatchers as of late.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per K.e.coffman and others, as an WP:LISTN. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete I passed on the first one, but I would like to remind past and future participants that WP:ITSA are essays, as the Slick mentions.L3X1 (distænt write) 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.