Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Sukma attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) J947( c ) (m) 04:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Sukma attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lackluster information, can easily be mentioned in Timeline of the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency and goes against WP:NOTNEWS. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 03:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 26 jawans dead, worst attack in seven years in a major insurgency and not notable? Sounds like a joke to me. Just compare with, say, Harrods bombings or Deal barracks bombing. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this is highly relevant to the insurgency then it can be merged with the insurgency's article. Dysklyver 08:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue here is whether this event is notable or not. If something comparable had happened in the U.S. or in the UK, it would certainly be regarded as notable (it's certainly far more notable than the events I provided above as examples). The fact that we are having this discussion is a symptom of pervasive WP double standards. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
international coverage

*Delete - Body count has never been a very effective means to measure anything. Why are 26 Jawans -- with absolutely zero mention of the other side -- considered to meet the notability threshold? Would 25 just not cut it or is there something special about 26 that I am not aware of? Wikipedia is not news; if anything other than an editor's threshold for body count is notable, it can be merged elsewhere.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment anymore. Nothing particularly unique about the coverage but I don't appreciate being associated with bias or disregard hence my strike out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2017 (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.