Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election was to delete, with the nominator's rationale citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since the content of this page is, again, pretty much just routine congratulations, the same arguments brought forward in 2020 still apply here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is still important news, But Stuff like the Assassination attempt were merged into the main article. New antares (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RECENTISM at its worst. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article appears to be nothing more than a list of congratulations, standard as any other election victory. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These boilerplate congratulations from world leaders who know they will need to deal with Trump as of January 20 are beyond WP:ROTM and unencyclopedic. Lmk if a world leader (in office) condemns Trump today, that would be out of the ordinary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a page for the International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, so the precedent for notable elections having international reaction pages exists. GigaDerp (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the difference is that the Venezuelan presidential election was highly controversial, with multiple countries explicitly criticizing it. Still, one way or another, this is still WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially since there hasn't been a discussion on the suitability of that page to establish precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuelan election is notable because of concerns about how the election itself was conducted. Most of the reactions to it were based on that. This election really isn't that notable on its own. Several notable things happened during the campaign and Trump's nonconsecutive election is important, but the outcome isn't all to significant I think. Qqars (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see above that International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election is brought up as a "what about that?" above, but that was a disputed election in which different foreign governments decided whether or not to accept the result. That is obviously different to this. However, why hasn't anyone brought up the more glaringly obvious parallel - International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election? There is no difference between these two articles - the same guy won (you can argue which one was more of a shock) - and there was no full-on war between Ukraine and Russia in 2016 for the office of president to affect, nor were Israel and Palestine at full-on war. Surely both must be nominated as the same argument applies. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate the 2016 article if you want to. I found the current article while patrolling new pages, which is why I nominated this one specifically for deletion so the community could discuss its suitability. As far as I know, unlike for the 2020 article, there hasn't been any discussion yet about the 2016 one. Still, I believe it should be nominated separately rather than in a bundled nomination, as the 2016 article is much longer-standing and has more depth to its content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this, and instead of outright having this and the 2016 page be deleted, couldn't they be merged into some grand International reactions to United States presidential elections or equivalent page? Since some elections have less notable reactions (like 2020), it seems like WP:PAGEDECIDE might apply and the pages would serve better as a group than a mess of tiny pages. GigaDerp (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this entire article was created because @User:Jfhutson made the right call and removed the international section on the main page for this election. Instead of proponents discussing this, and without 1RR vio, this article has been created. Article is clearly a symptom of WP:TDS.
Delete it. Barnt Toust 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not WP:TDS; there's a page for the exact same situation in 2016. SwensonJ (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Barnt Toust 15:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The international response to the 2020 election in Belarus differ markedly, with some countries accepting the result and others outright rejecting, whereas reactions to the 2024 US presidential election were mostly just congratulations messages and there is not much coverage of this election after that. Haruka Amaranth 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neutral at one point and it is nothing noteworthy compared to the post-election parts in the 2020 Singaporean general election and 2023 Singaporean presidential election where it was one paged only (though there is a pre-election page for the former), unless it was more notable like the 2016 one. Sculture65 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep: I am aware there were some unique responses but I'm aware while noteworthiness is into question I feel it could be better if it can be simplified to just similar to what Sculture65 mentioned. I know most of them are congratulatory messages but some may have important elements that may affect potential foreign relationships. I feel it needs more evaluation as well as we look and see. 20chances (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: as previously mentioned, there is an International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election page, which while longer in content differs little in substance in that it is mostly congratulatory messages from heads of state and government. SwensonJ (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any recentism here is best fixed by similar articles in older elections. This is effectively a list article and the Google News search linked in the find sources template above surfaces plenty of reliable sources of the type required by WP:NLIST. Reuters Al Jazeera CBS McYeee (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This case of WP:RECENTISM can be fixed by similar articles in older elections. Like McYeee said, this is effectly a lite article and the Google News search has sources that pass the WP:NLIST. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 07:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here has been covered in anything that isn't routine coverage. The coverage in 2016 seemed to be a little different, especially with the popular vote/electoral college difference. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The information is critical and it should be preserved either in either this article or the main presidential election article. Xoocit (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find it surprising that an article like this could be created. If such articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia, it raises the question: should we create articles for every election and every congratulatory message from various countries? Elections happen annually around the world, and people extend congratulations regularly; I don’t think it’s appropriate to create articles for all of them. Baqi:) (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we shouldn't have articles for every "congratulatory message"; we can fit all the messages related to a given election in a single Article. The standard I would propose is that a separate article on reactions should be kept if merging is contraindicated by WP:TOOBIG and the reactions get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I think my proposal is at least as strict as the normal policy for inclusion. McYeee (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Routine congratulations between counterparts should not be repeated in their details, however, there will be some "wired" instances, for example Kremlin's refusal to congratulate, as well as (maybe) MFA China's wired announcements before Xi officially congratulates Trump. Those instances are - for a regular country with normal elections - in limited number and should be able to organized in the respective main article. --BoyuZhang1998 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: This is pretty much just congratulations. I don't believe this deserves its own page. I think it either should either be merged with 2024 United States presidential election or deleted as it's quite unremarkable, routine coverage. MarchRain ♡ ^{「weather station」} 11:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Relevant to track different reactions or the lack of it. --KajenCAT (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge It is not relevent enough to have its own page but i also believe it could be merged into the main article to list the international leaders who congratulated trump and the international communities reaction to his victory Paytonisboss (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions, agreeing the other comments in favor of merging the article.--Narsilien (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. A separate article such as this is completely unnecessary. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly oppose merging this. These leaders congratulate ever winner of a US presidential election. It offers no significant information about the election. --JFHutson (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions. As others said, this separate article isn't necessary and can be added onto that subsection of the 2024 US presidential election page. Rager7 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge per target being WP:TOOBIG at 12,000 words already. The article content is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE, but if it has to exist then at least leave it here instead of moving it (back) to an already overloaded page. CNC (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It is quite common for foreign leaders or representatives to congratulate the winning candidate of an election. Fails WP:ROUTINE. If some of the reactions are especially notable or receive significant coverage, they can be added back to the main page. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic value, WP:ROUTINE congratulatory remarks. No point in merging what should be deleted outright. Keep arguments mentioning other reactions pages are merely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2024 United States presidential election#International reactions --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's bad enough when we have these reaction sections in articles, we don't need separate articles for them. This is an encyclopedia. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really only the sentence saying "Most congratulated him" and another explaining why (i.e. mostly, he is the new president of the US so they are being polite out of practicality) is needed, both of which can go in a subsection of the main. Also, run-of-the-mill (WP:ROTM) as said above. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that the information in the article is crucial; even the majority of the sources are from either the country's ministry of foreign affairs or official news broadcasting agencies so at least they are reliable. Underdwarf58 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is article for International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election. And generally, there are many such articles about international reactions to important events. Rutdam (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete citing WP:ROUTINE. Augmented Seventh (talk)