Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Rimal neighborhood massacre


 * 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 rename, tag as NPOV. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Rimal neighborhood massacre

 * — (View AfD)

No RS, notability not established, POV title. I inquired regarding those issue but was only prompted to do an afd, instead of being given any answers, so i am obliging. --Striver 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless remedied.--Striver 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to 2006 Rimal neighborhood shooting or similar GabrielF 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to 2006 Rimal neighborhood killings, as "shooting" is ambiguous concerning the result (was anyone killed?) I chose "killing" because it is the term the New York Times is using. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. not notable and never will be. user:tasc --132.73.80.117 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and International Herald Tribune coverage all add up to "non-notable", right? Rename to 2006 Rimal neighborhood killings. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is non-notable because it's non-notable and wp is not a news agency. P.S. you're repeating yourself. user:tasc --132.73.80.117 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename and NPOV. Seems notable and sourced enough to me, just needs renaming and some NPOVing. delldot | talk 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which of the above renamings do you prefer? (Or a third suggestion?) &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "shootings" and "killings" are both ok, but I would lean ever so slightly toward "shootings". I think "shooting" is used in the sense of killing often enough that it wouldn't really be ambiguous, and "killings" sounds a little weird to me.  I'll think on it and see if I can come up with a third suggestion. delldot | talk 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * speedy keep given that's noms initial problem (notability) now addressed. then discuss naming & put it up for move. (please note: no prejudice to nominator) &rArr; bsnowball  10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename Per above. Somitho 12:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very notable event and sources meet RS. 85.65.211.177 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn I am not 100% sure if the article is notable in itself, but considering coverage from 3 RS, i give it the benefit of a doubt. So i withdraw the nom on the condition that the article is renamed to "shooting" or the like. --Striver 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well whether it's "killings" or "shootings" it ought to be plural. there were multiple victims. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 19:59, 18 December 2006 (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.