Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks

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 no consensus. There is no consensus here as to whether this should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS or kept per WP:EVENT and prior precendent. Perhaps these articles should be visited in several ~~years~~ months time, when we have the perspective of history to judge whether in fact these articles are actually notable. NW (Talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime however, I would recommend that an RFC be held to address the clash between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. NW (Talk) 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks

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

Just a news story, no indication that this will be of long term interest so should be Deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS. Codf1977 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many articles do exist with regards to bombing incidents as below:

29 September 2008 western India bombings

September 2007 bombings in Rawalpindi

September 2010 Quetta bombing

28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings

13 September 2008 Delhi bombings

September 2008 Peshawar bombing

14 September 2004 Baghdad bombing

September 2010 Lahore bombings

14 September 2005 Baghdad bombings

30 September 2004 Baghdad bombing

12 September 2008 Dujail bombing

15 September 2008 Balad Ruz bombing

A decision was initiated on talk-page for merger or movement of this article to 19 September Baghdad bombings which is a similar subject. This article should not be deleted as articles mentioned above. Humaliwalay (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep.Codf1977 (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Other stuff exists, yes. That other stuff exists is also quite irrelevant. I'd happily change my vote if anybody can supply evidence of lasting notability, but given that the event at hand happened yesterday... that seems unlikely. WP:NOTNEWS ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe these articles should exist for readers to get informed on particular incidents and happenings, there may be redirection for these articles in related articles like Bombings or September bombings etc. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Humaliwalay RahulChoudhary 11:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the usual WP:NOTNEWS reasons. I wish people would have an eye on the historical rather than sitting and refreshing Google News all day, looking for articles to write, i.e. WP:RECENTISM. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major attack. cant see how WP:NOTNEWS applies here--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major attack, also odd considering that Wikipedia already has similiar articles. Shouldn't we have a permanent policy if this is to be the case? IMO, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is largely relevant because there are hundreds of articles like this documenting similiar attacks. Either delete all of them then. Mar4d (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy, it is called WP:NOTNEWS, there is no indication that this event, as tragic as it is for those involved, is of any lasting significance, it is, as an old Fleet Street saying, a classic example of "today's news tomorrow's chip wrapping". And like Ginsengbomb show me the third and fourth day coverage of this and I can be persuaded to withdraw the nom. Codf1977 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been a few bombings in Baghdad this year. Perhaps articles on these instances should be merged into a [[List of attacks in Baghdad in 2010]] or something similar? Just throwing ideas out there. Or maybe List of suicide bombings in Iraq in 2010 could be expanded to include a brief summary of each incident, including this one (although, I am aware it was not a suicide bombing—perhaps rename the article)? Nightw 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misapplication of NOTNEWS policy. Clearly not the "news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities," which NOTNEWS intends to exclude.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a WP:CONS that individual acts of terrorism that gain wide and even international news coverage are notable. WP:EVENT was written to separate this from routine things like traffic accidents, that are WP:NEWS and that get minor coverage only in local newspapers.AMuseo (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People have to read what the guidelines says, not just the titles of the guidelines. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes clear that while not fine as a sole reason, it is fine as one of more than one reason to bolster an argument -- as here, where there are many refs reflecting notability. Same with NOTNEWS. Those referring to it would appear not to have read the guideline. The examples given of what is not the news of far, far lesser in significance than is this event. Also, national or global reporting are indicia of notability, and we have those here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct you, actually NOTNEWS is a Policy, not guideline (see below). Codf1977 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I can understand the immediate reaction of people who want to apply the NOTNEWS guideline, that is a misapplication and abundant precedents exist to attest to this fact. __meco (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, NOTNEWS is a Policy, not guideline and it states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." if you are claiming it does not apply then please demonstrate how this attack is of "enduring notability", because absent that, this belongs in wikinews and not wikipedia. Codf1977 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to do is what I already did, refer to Wikipedia's longstanding consensus to keep this type of articles. __meco (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think these attacks, horrifying though they may be, will have any lasting notability as we define it here on Wikipedia - and an AFD months from now would, I think, concur with that analysis and delete this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says that we should not keep this article just because other similar articles exist, and it's right - those articles have nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of this one. BUT, if there are precedents that this type of article is typically kept at AFD, because of the same or similar rationales, well - that's a reasonable argument. I concede that such precedent exists here, though I disagree with it - thus, keep, for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large terrorist event that passes WP:EVENT (which is the relevant policy here). I have merged one of the articles into the other so it is a lot clearer :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW WP:EVENT is a guideline and not a policy. Codf1977 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it was early in the morning ;). You make a good point below so switching to Delete on your rationale. --'Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I'm getting pretty sick of people trying to censor information on military/terrorist attacks out of Wikipaedia - these are notable events that will frequently be the subject of research. BlueRobe (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attempt at any form of censorship, here, there is no indication of any lasting notability to this event, all the ref's cited on the artical are from the day of the attack so absent anything to demonstrate "enduring notability" such as third or fourth day reporting on this, then it fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy and should be deleted. As I have said above, if it can be demonstrated that such coverage exists, happy to reconsider and withdraw my nom.Codf1977 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be WP:BIAS at work in attempts to delete articles about terrorist attacks in Iraq, when articles about terror attacks and attempted attacks in The United States and Britain are not deleted. See, for example, 2010 Newry car bombing.AMuseo (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. That article has the same problems as this. Just no one has got to it yet. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[1] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[2]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[3] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [4] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the Policy here is very clear - WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" so as above, please show that this is the case. Codf1977 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have your carefully read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I ask because looking to see what other articles exist and thereby demonstrate the actual standard of notability in use is WP policy. “In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” AMuseo (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMuseo, I'd ask you to strike or clarify those specific accusations of bias as I find it a personal attack. Each article, for me, is considered on its merits. You pointed me at another article with similar problems and I have prodded it with the same rationale. As Codf1977 is saying; the aim for articles such as these is to prove the enduring notability of the event - which I do not think can be done. Bombs blew up and killed people - it's, sadly, not an extraordinary or enduring event. The right place for this material is in some sort of article about 2010 terrorist events in Iraq. The event you describe simply does not appear to have widespread national or international impact. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, in company with most of the editors who have commented above, that you are misapplying standards of enduring notability and asseritons of Not News to an article that should be judged according to Wikipedia:Notability (events) and that is notable.AMuseo (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not criticizing you as an individual. I was criticizing what I see as a strong, recent tendency to propose articles about incidents of terrorism that take place in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza and the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, while articles about incidents of violent terrorism or even about terror plots in Europe and in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain are not proposed for deletion, or were not until someone followed a comparison that I made between the treatment of terrorism in the Near East and the treatment the article on the 2010 Newry car bombing to that page and proposed it for deletion. My larger point is that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles about individual incidents of terrorism outside the Near East not proposed for deletion, including some very minor plots and incidents. Why pick on Newry, let us look also at the Los Angeles Times bombing, 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot, 1973 New York City bomb plot, 2001 shoe bomb plot, 1991 Toronto bomb plot, Wood Green ricin plot, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, 2002 white supremacist terror plot, 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, 2006 German train bombing plot, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 2007 London car bombs, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting, 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing], Wall Street bombing, Preparedness Day Bombing, Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple,

2009 Bronx terrorism plot, Alleged 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen, Bomb plot against the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, Connetquot High School Plot, 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, Hudson River bomb plot, 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 2000 millennium attack plots, New York City landmark bomb plot, 2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. I could go on. What I do not see is the grounds on which to argue that these and the hundreds of article like them belong on Wikipedia, while the 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks do not.AMuseo (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it was directed at me, in part. When the reality is I came to this article quite randomly. Thanks for the above articles, I will try to go through them over the next couple of days. It is worth pointing out that NOTNEWS is the policy and so trumps notability :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:24, 26 September 2010 (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.