Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2008 Peshawar bombing

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 per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination). Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008 Peshawar bombing

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS as there is no indication of any "enduring notability and should be Deleted Codf1977 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. This is also a classic example of WP:BIAS. A similar incident (with 35 deaths) in a Western country would not for a second be nominated for deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amuseo--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AMuseo and Brewcrewer. Mar4d (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS is policy and arguing retention the grounds that its notable is a misapplication of a guideline. Does this have enduring significance? No. Should it be covered in another article dealing with unrest and terrorism in Pakistan? yes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AMuseo.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this event is not likely to have enduring notability in the United States (where, let's face it, a loud plurarilty of WP editors reside, including me, and if it didn't happen "in America's backyward" we tend to forget about it rather quickly) does not mean that it is not enduringly notable in Pakistan or even in the wider Asia region. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 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.