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

Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive

[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 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]

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]