Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive

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 keep. Discussion on what quotes to keep, what amount of quote content to keep for each entry, and whether or not the article should be merged are best welcome at Talk:Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive[edit]

[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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Contains mostly the expected diplomatic platitudes, including by countries about whose opinion nobody in the region cares, in the form of flag salad. Excessive detail. Can be summarized in a few sentences in the main article, 2019 Rojava offensive. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and Keep. The purpose of the article is not to be news, but instead to clear out the "reactions" section of it's parent article, which had gotten quite bloated. Faced with the undesirable alternatives of deleting relevant information or making the article too long to be comfortably readable, the splitting off of the reactions section offers a moderate middle ground, which allows for the most significant reactions to be summarized within the parent article, while maintaining the full list for willing readers on a separate page. This is very similar to what was done with Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Reactions to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, as well as many other articles. Goodposts (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. A legitimate sub-page. A part of the content does not qualify as WP:RECENTISM. The page should be fixed, not deleted. In the really significant international events (such as that one) some reactions are important and should not be lost. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge this article, on other operations, (Operation Euphrates Shield, and Operation Olive Branch, these reactions were on the main article. Beshogur (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be "merge"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was already under Operation Peace Spring article. Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. As for its "purpose ... not to be news, but instead to clear out the "reactions" section of it's[sic] parent article, which had gotten quite bloated"; well, indeed it had, but the solution is to remove the platitudes, summarise the remaining quotes, and let the three sentences you are left with remain in the parent article. Not create a horrible NOTNEWS-busting list of politicians' quotes from Twitter. This is just shifting the problem somewhere else. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would entail the deletion of a huge amount of information needlessly. Feel free to do the summarization on the parent article, but the child article is fully legitimate in expressing the full list of reactions, as many other articles have done so far. Some readers may be interested in reading about the official position of a perticular country, a regional bloc, or would simply like more information on how the world in general reacted to this event. This is the purpose of the article. Goodposts (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As regards "the child article is fully legitimate in expressing the full list of reactions", please see why we are not an indiscriminate collection of "stuff". If it is kept, the article will have to be drastically trimmed in any case.--The Huhsz (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – contains more than "platitudes". See for instance the reaction of the EU commissioner for migration on the day before the announced invasion. Wakari07 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but please merge it into the current Rojava Offensive article as this is important information as it does have obvious historic value.Takinginterest01 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -- the vast majority of material here is notable. Whether it is placed here or on 2019 Rojava offensive is a style choice.--Calthinus (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every reaction documented here carries some geopolitical significance; this isn't like the reaction to a massive terrorist attack where everyone can be expected to denounce it in language identical to their response to every other terrorist attack. Additionally, this seems to have been split off from the main article because it was already too long; if it was believed that this information could be reasonably summarized, then this would have occurred on the main article. In regards to WP:ICONDECORATION, the flags are helpful for quickly finding country responses, so they serve more than a decorative purpose. Regardless, AfD is not clean-up; the desirability of the flag symbols does not impact the appropriateness of there being an article for this topic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The strong and virtually unanimous condemnations of Turkey go far beyond 'normal' reactions this time. The reactions are relevant, and backed up by ample sources. Keeping them all in the article on the Turkish invasion of Rojava would be too long, making a separate article relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High ranking and unanimous condemnations of the aggressor. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For already given reasons. If the operation ends up being short, this article should be merged. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Information is relevant for an ongoing event. Provides consistency in that 'international reactions' are recorded on Wikipedia pages for many events that have occurred (not just military operations). Maybe to make the article a bit easier on the eyes to split the respective nations into continental areas if possible. If not then a merge might be the best option. Information should definitely be kept though. DarkLight753 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It would be better to have this be its own article than to jam it into the Rojava offensive one, and other military events have had their own pages dedicated to reactions to said event. However as mentioned previously, if the operation is short, merging this article would be better. Fernsong (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presenting a wide overview of international reaction has a significance beyond the conflict itself. It is a nice illustration of undeclared alliances in international politics. Darwwin (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the entirety of the article back into 2019 Rojava offensive. I don't have an opinion whether it should be a separate article, but all the information here should be kept. I found this AFD because I went looking for this information. It's an aspect of the main event, and not inherently more newsy than the main event. This will be useful information to retain in the long term. -Pine457 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and merge) - as per sentiments expressed by @Pine457.Resnjari (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article. Turkey's actions have attracted lots of attention, and might have a wide range of consequences. A topic that deserves to have its own article, though it might need to be restructured. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (have already voted Keep/Merge above) at this point we may as well close this per WP:SNOW, and instead discuss how/if to merge it with the main article.--Calthinus (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a very helpful colored-in world map image, that was removed from the main article for some reason. It would be quite practical to keep the image on the main article to provide a good at a glance overview, while keeping the actual reactions themselves to the reaction page. That way we maximise both information density and article readability, imo. Goodposts (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge obviously! Worldwide opposition to this offensive is just too notable for us to just ignore and delete the article. The sources make this fact quite clear. The information can either stay here or be merged with the main article but not be deleted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The so-called "diplomatic platitudes" from the United States, in particular, have achieved wide distribution and notability. - Jandalhandler (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the information here should be kept its helpful. PakEditor14 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "reactions" articles are the cruft-iest most useless list pages on Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, fails WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - per Spirit of Eagle. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Well-referenced and notable. Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others-- BoothSift 00:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Obviously need to keep. Far more than "platitudes"; either that or merge with main. Useful for details and reactions, yes? Also, stop allowing Turkish nationalists to edit this and the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.23.63.30 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This is a clearly escalating situation in Syria, to delete this article would be extremely counterproductive at this point.Theprussian (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Well-referenced and notable. Will no doubt become more useful in the future, given the escalating and changing military situation. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and well sourced. Felicia (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gives option on the current event. --cyrfaw (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and Merge into the main article. While most of the reactions are noteworthy and significant, it is not necessary to provide the exact quotation of the words chosen by every foreign ministry (this article is a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM). I'm sure we can summarise the reactions and move them back into the main article.VR _talk 22:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state is a bit of a long and disorganized, but the topic is notable and the article has a place here. Sourcing and notability aren't the real issue here, but the WP:NOTNEWS arguments are a fair point, particularly for less significant world events. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2019 (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.