Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation[edit]

This is now our 8th "International reaction to..." article. Like all the others, it deals with a 2006/7 event. Like all the others, it's also probably unnecessary. It smacks of recentism (shouldn't we first have "International reactions to the German invasion of Poland", "International reactions to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor", "International reactions to the North Korean invasion of South Korea", etc?). Many of the reactions, from countries like Tajikistan, Israel, Norway or Georgia, are not of encyclopedic value. I wouldn't mind keeping a couple of key reactions in the main body of the text - let's say one each from Estonia, Russia and the EU, and indeed those are still there. However, the Bronze Soldier already has an 80kb article and the story is, all things considered, not such a big deal. Let's keep some perspective here and delete this lengthy digression. WP:NOT#IINFO, if you want a specific policy basis. Biruitorul 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge appropriate info into main Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. These little split-off articles always annoy me, I'm all for consolidation...K. Lásztocska 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a creator. All of the content is from the main article, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn - that article was almost 110KB, so, after discussion on the talk page, consensus was to move reaction to another article - it was more then quarter of the main article. While everyone agrees that the reaction should be kept, all of it is not needed in the main article, which is simply getting too cluttered. Bronze Soldier of Tallinn is still too big (78KB), so very likely further sub-articles are needed. Considering that consensus to split was reached, I find this AfD somewhat weird and unneeded. DLX 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the Bronze Soldier article was getting too long and messy, perhaps the section on international reaction should simply be tightened up, condensed, and made to fit into one clear, concise paragraph. (Getting rid of all those little flags would be a good start.) I personally find these little split-off sub-articles annoying and unnecessary, not to mention potentially confusing. I like to fit as much information into main articles as possible. K. Lásztocska 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I would have preferred that as well. But unfortunately there are some users (one of them got permanently blocked two days ago, though) who would have labeled it as "Estonian vandalism" and started a revert war. Article about Bronze Soldier was coming nicely along, but now the editing has more or less stopped because of those users - which may have been what they wanted all along. DLX 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the actually notable reactions into Bronze Soldier of Tallinn Bigdaddy1981 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notable reactions are in main article already - two from Estonian officials, two from Russian officials. One from EU, one from NATO, one from UN - and yet I was accused of vandalism and trolling, "You should Return The reaction back or drop all reaction from the Soldier. Given your trolling history, each war could be your last war." DLX 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May be a case for inclusion in the main article of German and possibly other Baltic states' reactions to the issue; I agree that the main notable reactions are included already. Bigdaddy1981 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not merged back to the main, Keep if insisted on keeping all reactions. I point out that splitting out the less relevant reactions was consensus on the talk.--Alexia Death 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; merge anything encyclopedic to the main article. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus on talk. We cannot delete this info but want to split from the main article Alex Bakharev 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We cannot delete this info - of course we can. You may not want to delete it, which is fine, but we can if a consensus to delete emerges. After all, this encyclopedia's quality will not suffer markedly if we omit mention of (eg) the Tajik Council of War Veterans' reaction to the Bronze Soldier relocation. Biruitorul 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: aw c'mon, what have you got against the Tajiks? :P But seriously, I do agree. This article is terribly bloated (not least by those insufferable flag icons!) and would need SERIOUS pruning, condensing, clarifying and general tightening-up if we were to keep it--at which point we could probably just stuff it back into the main Bronze Soldier article....so perhaps that was a moot point? Anyway...K. Lásztocska 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment: an idea has just struck me: why not have an article May 2007 controversy over relocation of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn? Right now, apparently, all the info about the controversy is jammed into the article about the monument itself, which is certainly not the best way to do things...and leads inevitably to these sorts of problems. This international reaction stuff does not fit at all into the main Bronze Soldier article, but could work just fine (in an improved form!) in an article specifically about the controversy. K. Lásztocska 01:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: This has been suggested and talked about several times, however, no consensus has been reached. Perhaps "freeze" this AfD and do a RfC about the split? And, if the consensus is to split, move contents from International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation to the "controversy" article? DLX 05:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not merged back to the main page, at least reaction of major powers and circum-Baltic countries. Colchicum 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Or, more precisely, merge back the reaction by US, German, Israeli, Swedish, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish _officials_ (one from each country) and delete other stuff. Colchicum 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge back to main article. The reactions are notable. Merge back most notable statements.21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Biophys 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge back whatever reactions are notable. (Sorry, Biophys, we usually agree on things, but here I must disagree; e.g., what is notable about what the UN Secretary-General said? Diplomatic jargon rarely stands out, don't you think so?) Turgidson 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No strong objections; but then someone should put back at least a few most notable statements.Biophys 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree on that. See how easy is to find a compromise? Turgidson 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a general rule, I don't like these "international reaction to XYZ" articles because isolated quotes can be misleading. If we are to have such articles, then they should be on significant topics (such as International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War), not diplomatic quibbles such as this.--Ploutarchos 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge back any actually notable reactions (that are not already in there). Per Turgidson I agree that non-notable responses from notable individuals (UN Sec Gen) should not be included. Bigdaddy1981 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per consensus at the main article - can be pruned or re-merged possibly once the situation has stabilised further, but for now it is important to ensure a rounded and balanced coverage of reactions (incl those from interested parties in other former Soviet territories) and to reduce the length of the main article. This article represents a reasonable solution to some of the difficulties at the original article, and this AfD is quite unhelpful. (Rather blinkered, by the way, to refer to the matter as a "diplomatic quibble"). HeartofaDog 10:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what the nom claims, the story is actually quite a big deal in the perspective of Russian-Estonian relations. That said, I see no purpose to recording dozens of quotes about the incident. As regards shortening the main article ... perhaps a split for the relocation could do that. Delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:37, 12 June 2007 (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.