Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 May 2010 Iraq 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The result was Forget this ridiculous discussion no point in arguing; withdrawn by nominator; WP:NAC. Mike moral  ♪♫  03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

10 May 2010 Iraq attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a new agency and there is no need for news here. Mike moral  ♪♫  02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * delete Due to NOTNEWS Terinjokes (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep this is a significant set of notable attacks widely reported in RS. see WP:N/CA--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. 100 dead is clearly significant and notable. Early reporting clearly indicates its political significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of policy. Just because something is news doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  Events that result in a significant number of deaths are almost always worthy of inclusion, and this is no exception. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * comment &mdash; Since this story is still breaking, how can the information in the source be considered "reliable"? If the source's info is still preliminary, then this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia... yet. In a few days, after the facts have solidified, yes. Now? No, as per N/CA. Something can't be deemed notable until we actually know what happened:P. Until we know what occurred, no judgment can be made, and thus the article shouldn't exist. Gopher65talk 03:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument amounts to little more than semantic games. Do you honestly believe that if say the president was assassinated that we shouldn't have an article containing what we do know right away because information will change?  Heck, people still debate the "real truth" about nearly every topic on the encyclopedia, so I guess we shouldn't have any info at all since truth might change?  Plus the AfD will last 7 days if not closed early, so your entire "Wait a few days" point is moot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the beauty of Wikipedia- as details emerge, they can be added and changed- we're not bound by what we've already written. There's a difference between "news" and "recent"- the ability to be able to cover current events in their context as they unfold is what sets Wikipedia apart both from news sites and from other encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that very unreliablity is what sets us apart from other encyclopedias. They have the (un)advantage of covering topics that are... historical, for lack of a better term. Since we're insisting on covering topics that are so new that even CNN and Fox aren't stooping to provide details that are still highly speculative, we're losing the aura of reliability that an encyclopedia normally engenders. This is the very reason why the WMF spun off a news site from Wikipedia: to keep Wikipedia respectable, and far away from the ups and downs of both speculative journalism and yellow journalism. Gopher65talk 03:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per nom actually! Wikipedia isn't a news site, and this isn't a news article- it provides encyclopaedic coverage of a series of horrific but notable events and that will form a significant part of the history of Iraq. Just being recent doesn't make it unencyclopaedic and this is where WP and Wikinews can both support each other and differ from each other at the same time in that WN is a news site and so provides detailed information that, in the long term, would not be notable in an encyclopaedia article and yet the WP article can deal with the subject in the context of the Iraq war and the insurgency. It isn't redundant to the WN article nor is is the WN article redundant to this- it's a question of focus. I hope this doesn't have to run the whole 7 days because it would be nice to get it up on the Main Page before it's too old. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is this is still new and the facts aren't completely "set-in-stone" one might say. I don't understand why we would need an article at the moment an event occurs. Ideally, when a person dies, the death date is placed and details of his or her death should not be added until any details are confirmed, or "set-in-stone." The same should go for events such as this. Wait 1 to 2 days before writing an article so the facts are completely verifiable. Mike  moral  ♪♫  03:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm probably a biased party to this discussion, as I'm a regular at Wikinews (where articles like this are generally considered just duplication of effort, since you're basically doing the same thing Wikinews is doing - updating content as it happens). I'm personally of the opinion that Wikipedia should not create articles on things immediately as they happen, but allow some time to pass in order to reflect on the issue better - to determine if it really is notable after all, and to be able to cover it from a historical perspective, which is very difficult to do when things are in a state of flux. The way I look at it, an encyclopedia should only have *stable* information - otherwise, it ceases to become an encyclopedia, and goes more in the realm of a news source. I don't feel I'm sufficiently active to vote here, so I won't, but just my two pence. Cheers, Tempodivalse   [talk]  03:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For argument's sake, if I agreed with that, that wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion- deleting something only to re-create it in a day or 2 is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Again, just because something is recent doesn't mean it's not notable- would you advocate waiting a day or two before putting the results of the UK general election up on WP? Or perhaps we should wait a day or two before adding information about a SCOTUS nomination to the nominee's article? Both would be considered utterly daft, so why should this be different? Also, for the record, as an occasional WN contributor myself, I have the utmost respect for WN, but this article would (if it hadn't been nominated for deletion while only a few hours old) cover the event in the wider context that a news service doesn't. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.