Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Pakistan landmine blast


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

2006 Pakistan landmine blast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sourcing and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Indrian (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL WP:NOTNEWS stuff. Ansh666 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Event with world-wide resonance in sources (apart from the BBC news in the article, one can find it in Arab News and Russian Pravda, among others). I doubt a mine explosion killing 26 wedding guests is "routine" or "run of the mill", thus it passes WP:NOTNEWS. -- Cycl o pia  talk  12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * News reports in close proximity to the events they cover are considered primary sources. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in secondary sources.  You have yet to explain why you feel this event is special enough that we should make an exception to one of our generally accepted standards. Indrian (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "News reports in close proximity to the events they cover are considered primary sources. " - This is new to me: can you link me the relevant policy? -- Cycl o pia talk  14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy part is that we require secondary source coverage to establish notability. This is actually also reflected in WP:NOR, which specifically states that articles should be based on secondary sources, with primary sources used cautiously for descriptive information.  WP:NOR also gives a basic definition of a primary source as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved."  It then goes on to list a few examples and link to definitions from several prestigious research institutions.  A useful essay (not policy) that goes into more detail is WP:USEPRIMARY.  Basically, wikipedia uses the generally accepted scholarly definition of a primary source, which includes news reports that are recounting events or quoting individuals close to events.  Newspapers are secondary sources when they provide in-depth analysis from the reporter/author based on research from other primary or secondary sources or if they are discussing events long after they happened.  Any textbook on historiography or historical research methods would define newspapers in the same way, though I have none at hand to quote.  I hope that helps. Indrian (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so nowhere is to be found in our policies and guidelines that news reports are primary sources of an event. That's what I thought. Most of the relevant paragraph in the essay WP:USEPRIMARY is indeed completely at odds with accepted practice at WP:AFD and other notability discussion, where news sources are considered regularly building a case for notability as reliable, secondary sources. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for how other people may confuse primary and secondary sources in debates, but our definition of primary source does not deviate in any way from the accepted definition amongst scholars (the people that came up with the idea of primary and secondary sources in the first place) and our policy page in fact links to definitions of the term primary source that includes newspaper articles. So yes, our policy does include newspaper articles that are reporting on events.  Any contradictions you have seen around here are based on user error. Indrian (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What you call "user error" I call "de facto consensus", given that we're not talking math. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus cannot override policy (unless a consensus is reached to change policy, of course). Just because a lot of users get it wrong does not change the definition of the term, nor does it change the fact that by linking to definitions of primary source that explicitly include newspaper articles WP:NOR has spoken on this issue.  WP:NOR itself does not state that the examples it gives of specific types of sources is an exhaustive list. Furthermore, by specifically linking to scholarly resources that define a primary source to justify the policy, there is a clear intent by our policy to use the standard definition codified by the scholarly community. Our policies do not need to exhaustively define terms that have a general meaning already.  Our policies only need to be exhaustive when our use of terminology differs from the standard, ie "neutraility" or "original research," which are terms of art on the project. Primary source is not, and therefore our policies need not cover the issue in great detail. News reports already fall under the general definition of a primary source as stated in our policy, since they are "original materials close to an event."  That they are not listed as an example later in the definition is immaterial. Indrian (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Local consensus cannot override policy. But the global factual consensus in these discussions, as far as I have seen (and I participated in quite a few, in the last few years) is that news sources do constitute secondary coverage for the purposes of notability. In this case, it means the policy -being it descriptive usually, not prescriptive- oughts to be updated. But there is no need for it, because nowhere in our policies news reports are considered explicitly primary sources -all the rest is wikilawyering. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where you are coming from. I still disagree, but the rationale makes sense. Indrian (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. 26 people dead. Let's just consider whether anyone could nominate such an incident for deletion if it happened in Britain or the USA without it being laughed out of AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did not realize that AfD was all about personal attacks rather than policy debates. Thanks for enlightening me. And here I was thinking there were standards for admins on wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief, in what way was that a personal attack? I was pointing out that a similar incident in Britain or the USA would never even be nominated. Which is true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I probably overreacted a bit, but you were basically accusing me of nominating the article based on some cultural bias rather than my actual concerns of a lack of secondary sourcing and no chance of the article growing beyond a stub. I would nominate an article on a Western tragedy for the same reasons. Indrian (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of anything. If it happened in the west it would be covered extensively by the media and written about endlessly on the internet. We have to combat systemic bias concerning incidents which happen in countries in which the media and internet (especially in the English language) are less established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, my apologies. Indrian (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability seems to be established. Everyking (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2013 (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.