Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2010 Khyber bombing
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 no consensus. Having looked through the discussion, I think it is fair to say that there is no consensus to be found here. However, I believe that this is a relection of the fact that we haven't really decided to what extent terrorist attacks should be covered on Wikipedia – are the vast majority of them "not news" or are they historically significant? I would recommend that a wider community discussion be opened on this. NW (Talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 2010 Khyber bombing[edit]
- February 2010 Khyber bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOT#NEWS. If this becomes something more than it is, we can have an article; until then, it's just another tragic but (in the long term) unimportant event. Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this was a politically significant event which is likely to be referred to subsequently. Utterly pointless to destroy the preparatory work already done on the subject. Wikipedia sometimes gives the impression that events are insignificant when it's non-Westerners who are involved. Opbeith (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "likely to be referred to subsequently"; see WP:CRYSTAL, and for the article generally, WP:NOT#NEWS. "We've already done work and it might be notable in the future so why destroy it?" is invalid. And you think nationality played a part in this at all? Please. It's non notable because it's just a news story. If somebody had shot up a house in the US, until proven otherwise, I'd assume it's just a news story. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And an additional point; this isn't an "event". It's several, unconnected events. On the same day, there were several unconnected and unrelated attacks of various degrees of success. They have never been discussed together, and there have been no links drawn between them. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, Opbeith, when you said "which is likely to be referred to subsequently" and "preparatory work" you just set yourself up for a standard-issue deletionist rebuttal. Fortunately, it's easy to evade that sort of thing, especially in this case; you just have to make your argument based on the existing importance of the subject and the existing plethora of sources. Also, remember that anytime someone cites WP:NOTNEWS without further explanation, it means they don't have an argument. Everyking (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done there Everything; personal comments and inferences. There is no plethora of sources, and WP:NOT#NEWS is self-explanatory. "disagreeing with rampant inclusionism" does not translate to "deletionist". Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "likely to be referred to subsequently"; see WP:CRYSTAL, and for the article generally, WP:NOT#NEWS. "We've already done work and it might be notable in the future so why destroy it?" is invalid. And you think nationality played a part in this at all? Please. It's non notable because it's just a news story. If somebody had shot up a house in the US, until proven otherwise, I'd assume it's just a news story. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This also appears to be about two unrelated incidents, the bombing and a later ambush unrealted to that. Also the artciel for deltion tag has been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now restored it but would ask that it is not removed untill the Afd is compleated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a notable event. just because it happened in Pakistan does not mean it is not notable. if this had happened in New York or London would anybody have thought about deletion???? the article of course needs to be improved and expanded.Wikireader41 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Says the article creator. Read WP:NOT#NEWS, please. Did I ever say it was non-notable because it happened in pakistan? Did I ever assert race or nationality or location played any role in my decision to AfD the article, or give any hint that that was my rationale? No. Please do not put words in my mouth, particularly such vile ones. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- did I ever accuse you ????? its your guilt that seems to be speaking here. and on the scale of 1-10 what would be the chances that you would have asked for deletion if this was in New York. can you give me ANY examples where you have done this in the past ( ie proposed for deletion an article covering an event where more than 10 people died). this was covered extensively by media across the continents. how about we propose deletion of Columbine High School massacre instead. I do not see any lasting effects there either.;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, let me disassemble your statement here. "I have never said nationality was a factor, please provide evidence that nationality is not a factor". Does that make sense to you, or does it sound as much like arse-covering as it does to me? And no, how about we don't delete an article on the CHS massacre. Your use of that article as an example highlights exactly what you're failing to grasp here; there is no evidence of this event having long-term impact. If you think the same is true about Columbine you haven't read the article. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- did I ever accuse you ????? its your guilt that seems to be speaking here. and on the scale of 1-10 what would be the chances that you would have asked for deletion if this was in New York. can you give me ANY examples where you have done this in the past ( ie proposed for deletion an article covering an event where more than 10 people died). this was covered extensively by media across the continents. how about we propose deletion of Columbine High School massacre instead. I do not see any lasting effects there either.;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Says the article creator. Read WP:NOT#NEWS, please. Did I ever say it was non-notable because it happened in pakistan? Did I ever assert race or nationality or location played any role in my decision to AfD the article, or give any hint that that was my rationale? No. Please do not put words in my mouth, particularly such vile ones. Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and propose that in the future any current event that has been the subject of world news coverage in The New York Times be speedy kept. These nominations are just silly. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the NYT trumps WP:NOT#NEWS now, does it? Please point me towards that particularly eyebrow-raising guideline. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice that I used the word "propose"? Everyking (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point. Can you now explain how the NYT trumps WP:NOT#NEWS? Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It confounds me that people use NOTNEWS so frequently to argue against subjects that are definitively notable. It clearly says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Do you understand why this event is in a class entirely separate from those examples? Everyking (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So examples are now the be-all and end-all of what constitutes a guideline or policy? Perhaps you could quote the rest of the policy? "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.... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". Luckily, we now have WP:EVENT. Going through: there is no evidence of lasting effects, or a long duration of coverage. There is little geographical scope. There is no "depth" of coverage; they have been routine news reports. Are you satisfied that that goes into more detail than just "WP:NOT#NEWS"? Ironholds (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This admin seems to be referring to Wikipedia:Speedy keep. closing admin please note. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So examples are now the be-all and end-all of what constitutes a guideline or policy? Perhaps you could quote the rest of the policy? "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.... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". Luckily, we now have WP:EVENT. Going through: there is no evidence of lasting effects, or a long duration of coverage. There is little geographical scope. There is no "depth" of coverage; they have been routine news reports. Are you satisfied that that goes into more detail than just "WP:NOT#NEWS"? Ironholds (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It confounds me that people use NOTNEWS so frequently to argue against subjects that are definitively notable. It clearly says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Do you understand why this event is in a class entirely separate from those examples? Everyking (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point. Can you now explain how the NYT trumps WP:NOT#NEWS? Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice that I used the word "propose"? Everyking (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the NYT trumps WP:NOT#NEWS now, does it? Please point me towards that particularly eyebrow-raising guideline. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Usual warfare in NW Pakistan. Anyway, February, which day??--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- really. the date was Feb 10. you really think that this bombing is very different than 2009 Nazran bombing ?? BTW that was a nice article you started Wikireader41 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For now I think the event itself is significant, its just happened recently though. But, what is the lasting impact on this event?., Does it have some historical signifigance down the road? Will it stay in the media and continue to be covered? It seems too early to tell based on the structure of the article and state, as such I find the article falling under WP:Not News /event. However Its basically just happened, more context can be developed. However providing enduring coverage and analysis develops later I beleive the article can certaintly be re-created. As an alternative is there not a place this information can be merged into, until such time? Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that this article includes an infobox that links numerous other articles that are very similar. Are we going to delete every article on a terrorist attack in Pakistan? It has become standard practice to create articles on terrorist attacks that attract press coverage around the world, and I think if we are excluding world events that The New York Times sees fit to report, we're doing something seriously wrong. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. I think it would be fair to assume that as an experienced admin you have a better than average understanding of wikipedia policies. and in the article List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001#January - March 2010 there are plenty of redlinks for articles which wikipedians want written on similar incidents. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect EveryKings opinion first of all and what I am saying here is not against him as an editor (or anyone for that matter) but for others who may wish to participate in this discussion of this AFD and may interprete the above as that they shouldnt. I (and others) am allowed as editors of wikipedia just like him, to disagree or agree with another editor. Wether some one is an admin or not does not determine that their contribution to an AFD to understand policy is more or less accurate than the other. At the end of the day it is the closing admins job to assess consensus based on the merits of (everyones) discussion and not the standing of the editor themselves (as an admin or regular editor). WP is a project that anyone can edit, and as such anyone can particpate in AFD.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. I think it would be fair to assume that as an experienced admin you have a better than average understanding of wikipedia policies. and in the article List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001#January - March 2010 there are plenty of redlinks for articles which wikipedians want written on similar incidents. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that this article includes an infobox that links numerous other articles that are very similar. Are we going to delete every article on a terrorist attack in Pakistan? It has become standard practice to create articles on terrorist attacks that attract press coverage around the world, and I think if we are excluding world events that The New York Times sees fit to report, we're doing something seriously wrong. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment also believe that Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) more closely applies to this article than WP:EVENT. this is a clear cut criminal act not just another 'event'. it meets the 2 main criteria
- A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.
- While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples given under the guideline indicate it is intended for use on more "routine" criminal acts; murders, shootings and kidnappings, for example. The article also makes it clear that a plethora of interest is required. The coverage you have found is hardly massive, and is divided over three events; this isn't an attack, this is several attacks lumped together because they happened in the same month in the same province. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, btw. Ironholds (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the article is about a single specific bombing. another editor had introduced some additional stuff which I had removed before you posted this comment. The guideline nowhere says it is about 'routine' criminal acts. if you pay attention to the guideline --- 'Criminal act includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority' Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Information that you have re-inserted [[1]]Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes. according to NY times the rescue team (with the brigadier) which went in after this attack to the scene was ambushed. hence I have mentioned it in the aftermath section. the article still is about the single suicide blast which killed 19 people.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And accordng to all the other sources they were sent to rescue the helecopter crew, in an unrelated incident.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes. according to NY times the rescue team (with the brigadier) which went in after this attack to the scene was ambushed. hence I have mentioned it in the aftermath section. the article still is about the single suicide blast which killed 19 people.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Information that you have re-inserted [[1]]Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the article is about a single specific bombing. another editor had introduced some additional stuff which I had removed before you posted this comment. The guideline nowhere says it is about 'routine' criminal acts. if you pay attention to the guideline --- 'Criminal act includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority' Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples given under the guideline indicate it is intended for use on more "routine" criminal acts; murders, shootings and kidnappings, for example. The article also makes it clear that a plethora of interest is required. The coverage you have found is hardly massive, and is divided over three events; this isn't an attack, this is several attacks lumped together because they happened in the same month in the same province. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, btw. Ironholds (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no significant investigation or impact for this one, the death toll is also low. Qajar (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001#January - March 2010 where the event is covered, and consider possibilities for a separate article when it can be written as an encyclopedia article rather than a news report. Comparing this to similar bombings in western cities is a good point, but when they happen as often as they do now, separate articles for each and every event gets out of hand. I really do understand the people who want to keep this, and it is a very tragic state of affairs that a bombing killing 19 innocents becomes such a common event. The events merit coverage, but it is better to bundle them together into a single article so that the context becomes clearer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this redirect as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- unfortunately it is because of this very reason ( that these are relatively common events) that we need a separate article. One article which covers all suicide bombings in that region will either be too superficial in the coverage or become too long and unwieldy. also though the events are tragically common they somehow have sustained global interest as evidenced by coverage across the continents by reliable sources like new york times, BBC , financial times etc. though the details in English language sources are sketchy at this time I am sure with time we will have more info Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this redirect as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think wikireader has it right. To say we don't want to cover it separately because there are too many of them misses the significance. If there are a large number of notable atrocities, it makes them even more notable than if they were rare, and much more likely to be of historic importance. The reliable news sources we use understand this, and they devote whatever resources are necessary. WP is NOT PAPER, and as long as we haver people to write the articles, we can handle the material on a subject no matter how much of it there is. We are not an abridged encyclopedia--there are no such limits imposed by the medium we work in. . DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thanx. that precisely is the reason why WP is so popular around the globe. we are not constrained by size and can cater to a global audience. for those of us who believe all humans are created equal 19 dead people are as notable in pakistan as anywhere else.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Netural, I think I'm on both sides, just bcz it happened in Pakistan, doesn't make it "just another event". On the other hand causality count is too low, to be listed on Wikipedia.--yousaf465 08:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that equates to a "delete", then? Nobody (well, almost nobody) has said the location is a factor; it's the coverage the event has got and the depth of that coverage which is important. Ironholds (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yousuf you might want to take a look at 2010 Pune bombing which has a lower number of casualties then. It appeared 'In the News' on the main page. Ironholds I am sorry neutral does not equal delete. especially since the policy at AfD is to keep unless there is clear consensus to delete.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, Wikireader? Y'see, I've only been here for four years and had no idea that was policy! I meant his comments, since his argument for keeping is an inference that it's the location that we're arguing to delete on. And again, Wikireader; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That's really the best thing you can come up with? Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironholds i always knew you had no idea about wikipedia policies. please see WP:NotEarly which contains guidance for admins closing AfD debates. It states ' If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept.' WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay not an official policy. we cant be applying different set of criteria to different articles. all I was trying to point out to Yousaf was that casualty count itself is not a criteria to delete. may I take the liberty to state that this article will never be deleted. just give it a few days and everybody will know. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "this article will never be deleted"; and if consensus says otherwise? And you're misunderstanding; I was commenting on the text of Yosuf's comment, not the idea of a "neutral" vote generally. On a related note, could you please either a) provide evidence that I am a racist/nationalist who has nominated this article for deletion on bigoted grounds or b) apologise, and stop suggesting it? Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chill ironholds. I have never accused you as a person of being racial so question of apology does not arise. what I did accuse you is of not knowing wiki policies and you have yourself confessed in very clear words that you were unaware of WP:NotEarly. my prediction is that article will not be deleted as there will likely be no consensus. lets wait and see what happens. maybe I will be proven wrong like I said above in a few days we should know. cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very clear words? Err, see sarcasm. You have repeatedly suggested that the article was nominated and is being considered for deletion because it happened in Pakistan. How is that not an underhanded accusation? Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- because I do not make underhanded accusations. When I had an accusation to make I made it directly. See above. Also many believe that for various reasons coverage of certain geographic areas is better on WP than others. not necessarily because WP editors are racially motivated. it might just be that WP editors are not evenly distributed across the globe. so notable events/criminal acts from some areas don't always get a WP article. As someone who regularly works on articles involving Pakistan I can tell you Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan has not developed as well as it should have ( they list < 100 members). We have very few editors interested/working on Articles involving Pakistan. Considering Pakistan is 6th largest country in the world and has considerable level of notable activity going on, the coverage on WP is woeful. So chill. there are other useful things that you and I could be doing on WP instead of endlessly debating this. we have 2 admins who have voted here who do not support deletion ( 1 supports a keep and another a redirect). For whatever an admins word is worth on WP I recommend you think about that. I suggest you consider withdrawing this nomination and we move on to something else little more useful. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you were the Omnissiah of Wikipedia Policy! Surely you know, oh great oracle, that once a delete vote is cast a nom cannot be withdrawn, and also, oh most holy one, that admins votes and comments count for diddly squat more than any other user's. If you can spare me a moment of your gracious time, sire, I would urge you to consider this; that stating "just because it is in Pakistan doesn't mean it's unimportant" does not imply that there is poor coverage on Wikipedia, it implies that you are asserting that there is an active effort being undertaken to deem Pakistani events "less important" because of the nation they happen in. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then surely you can put a comment in bold letters here that you would like to withdraw your nomination and are not doing so for technical reasons. it will make the closing admins job a little easier. even though you say that admins votes and comments count for a diddly squat more than other editors I strongly disagree. admins are proven editors who have won the trust of the community and it is not unreasonable to expect them to have better knowledge of policy and procedure.use common sense and invoke WP:IAR. we are here to improve WP and not to waste time needlessly debating dead issues. take care. Wikireader41 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Making a comment like that does not cancel the nomination, and in any case I still feel the article should be deleted. It doesn't matter what you feel; guidelines, policies and community convention states that in content discussions, the opinions of admins are of no higher value than those of other editors. Please explain how being trusted with the "delete" button makes someone a more valuable content contributor than others? Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- then surely you can put a comment in bold letters here that you would like to withdraw your nomination and are not doing so for technical reasons. it will make the closing admins job a little easier. even though you say that admins votes and comments count for a diddly squat more than other editors I strongly disagree. admins are proven editors who have won the trust of the community and it is not unreasonable to expect them to have better knowledge of policy and procedure.use common sense and invoke WP:IAR. we are here to improve WP and not to waste time needlessly debating dead issues. take care. Wikireader41 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you were the Omnissiah of Wikipedia Policy! Surely you know, oh great oracle, that once a delete vote is cast a nom cannot be withdrawn, and also, oh most holy one, that admins votes and comments count for diddly squat more than any other user's. If you can spare me a moment of your gracious time, sire, I would urge you to consider this; that stating "just because it is in Pakistan doesn't mean it's unimportant" does not imply that there is poor coverage on Wikipedia, it implies that you are asserting that there is an active effort being undertaken to deem Pakistani events "less important" because of the nation they happen in. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- because I do not make underhanded accusations. When I had an accusation to make I made it directly. See above. Also many believe that for various reasons coverage of certain geographic areas is better on WP than others. not necessarily because WP editors are racially motivated. it might just be that WP editors are not evenly distributed across the globe. so notable events/criminal acts from some areas don't always get a WP article. As someone who regularly works on articles involving Pakistan I can tell you Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan has not developed as well as it should have ( they list < 100 members). We have very few editors interested/working on Articles involving Pakistan. Considering Pakistan is 6th largest country in the world and has considerable level of notable activity going on, the coverage on WP is woeful. So chill. there are other useful things that you and I could be doing on WP instead of endlessly debating this. we have 2 admins who have voted here who do not support deletion ( 1 supports a keep and another a redirect). For whatever an admins word is worth on WP I recommend you think about that. I suggest you consider withdrawing this nomination and we move on to something else little more useful. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very clear words? Err, see sarcasm. You have repeatedly suggested that the article was nominated and is being considered for deletion because it happened in Pakistan. How is that not an underhanded accusation? Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chill ironholds. I have never accused you as a person of being racial so question of apology does not arise. what I did accuse you is of not knowing wiki policies and you have yourself confessed in very clear words that you were unaware of WP:NotEarly. my prediction is that article will not be deleted as there will likely be no consensus. lets wait and see what happens. maybe I will be proven wrong like I said above in a few days we should know. cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that equates to a "delete", then? Nobody (well, almost nobody) has said the location is a factor; it's the coverage the event has got and the depth of that coverage which is important. Ironholds (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When this AFD mentions that an Admin's say is more valuable to the decision making process, non- admin users such as myself (and others) feel discouraged/intimidated in participating. This prevents consensus form being determined through the community as people will stay on the sidelines and not participate. That is not what AFDS are suppose to be about. AFDs are to determine consensus of the community on the article through this discussion, and as such the community (all, admin and non admin) should be encouraged to participate and have their say judged in the same manor as any other editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it carries more weight. It is just that admins are editors whio are expected to have better knowledge of policy and procedure and usually do. the threshold of knowledge required to be an editor and an admin is very different. usually only seasoned editors who have demonstrated good grasp of WP policy and procedure can become admins. it is not foolproof but generally the system we have to select admins works well. ofcourse admins can be recalled if they are not doing a good job. my comments were in no way to discourage your partcipation in Afd. I myself am not an admin and certainly voted here ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spoken like somebody who has never participated in the admin selection process. Admins are expected to have better knowledge of policy and procedure, yes. If you are saying this does not carry more weight, comments above like "consider you have two admins voting keep" don't make sense. The idea that "admins can be recalled if they are not doing a good job" is also lol-inducing. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it carries more weight. It is just that admins are editors whio are expected to have better knowledge of policy and procedure and usually do. the threshold of knowledge required to be an editor and an admin is very different. usually only seasoned editors who have demonstrated good grasp of WP policy and procedure can become admins. it is not foolproof but generally the system we have to select admins works well. ofcourse admins can be recalled if they are not doing a good job. my comments were in no way to discourage your partcipation in Afd. I myself am not an admin and certainly voted here ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the one hand we have the argument that a delete vote represents systemic bias, because of course if there were a comparable terrorist attack in a western country an AfD would be laughable—in fact, there would probably be several articles detailing different aspects of the attack. On the other hand, we have the argument that this just hasn't received enough coverage to merit an article—that a comparable attack in a western country would receive far more coverage and would therefore be more worthy of an article. It seems to me the latter argument is flawed in two respects: first, it dismisses the importance of reports that have already been cited in western newspapers like The New York Times. Secondly, and even more importantly, it applies no critical thought to the nature of press coverage between countries—of course western media would pay more attention to a terrorist attack in a western country. But what about the Pakistani media? When assessing notability in the Pakistani context, shouldn't we consider how the Pakistani media is treating the subject? And while I haven't looked into it, I would certainly imagine that this attack received far more attention in the Pakistani press than it did in the western press (and remember, the attention from the western press was actually fairly significant). Everyking (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this was extensively covered in the Pakistani national news media ( English Language). also would like to point out the national language of Pakistan is Urdu and not English. The job of editors working on articles in Non english speaking parts of the world is that much harder. Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also on a related note I feel we would possibly benefit from having more clarity in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) to address coverage of such violent criminal attacks resulting in multiple casualties. In real world they are called 'terrorist attacks' but on WP we do not like using that term I guess because of concerns about neutrality. after this AfD may be we can work on Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and hopefully come up with some clear statement of what the threshold of inclusion for these unfortunate but common incidents should be on WP( after appropriate discussion ofcourse).Wikireader41 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would welcome any discussion on this on the policy's talk page. I think someone in the past though brought (something simmilar) up (but i dont believe it was followed through)Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Political_violence.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also on a related note I feel we would possibly benefit from having more clarity in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) to address coverage of such violent criminal attacks resulting in multiple casualties. In real world they are called 'terrorist attacks' but on WP we do not like using that term I guess because of concerns about neutrality. after this AfD may be we can work on Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) and hopefully come up with some clear statement of what the threshold of inclusion for these unfortunate but common incidents should be on WP( after appropriate discussion ofcourse).Wikireader41 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this was extensively covered in the Pakistani national news media ( English Language). also would like to point out the national language of Pakistan is Urdu and not English. The job of editors working on articles in Non english speaking parts of the world is that much harder. Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 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.