Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka


 * 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. W.marsh 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Belongs in Wikinews. It's a breaking news story, not an encyclopaedia article. We need to wait some time before we have a historical perspective on whether this is considered independently significant. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Terence 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep seems unlike an ordinary crime case, in context of the larger conflict in Sri Lanka. It has multiple sources from far afield of the location of the crime, and is about the events and not biographies of the victims, criminals, or the like. I take issue with the "wait and see", isn't the purpose of Wikipedia where the wiki comes from the Hawaiian word for "quick" to put content quickly on-site. Should editors have held off on the Virginia Tech Massacre or any other "breaking news" story until the dust settled? No. The article will no doubt improve over time as new sources and perspective can be brought to bear, but that's no reason to delete a notable, sourced event. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete We do not create an article everytime 2 more people are murdered in Baghdad or in Miami. Why should Sri Lanka be different? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and per WP:NOT we do not have to have an article about everything that has newspaper coverage. If it proves to have national or international implications, an article could be created then. Breaking news can go in Wikinews. Edison 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We also have WP:PAPER. Just because we don't have to have any article, doesn't mean we can delete it based on that premise. We don't have to have any of the articles in Wikipedia.  Cool Blue  talk to me  00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I take into account Edison's point, but since these workers were volunteer Red Cross workers, abducted whilst on their training program, it is quite a significant case. The fact that these people were aid workers is different, and even the President of Sri Lanka is getting personally involved with the case, and attended the funeral. Surely if the President of the country feels it is significant enough to attend, it is a notable event? It's not like Bush attends the funerals of every murder victim in the USA? Thanks. Thusiyan 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Ummm... I'd be a bit more compelled if there were some specific policies listed that constitute a violation. While I realize that Wikipedia is not Wikinews, it seems to read like an encyclopædia article, and we have plenty of 2007 _______________ incident articles. No doubt in my mind, keep.  Cool Blue  talk to me 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hilarious. You demand policies, and then advocate speedy keep, which policy says cannot be applied in this case.  So: policy is WP:NOT.  Guy (Help!) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please let's keep cool, the question what is the policy violation that led to the nomination ? But no where in NOt did I see that a notable event that also happens to be a latest news cannot be an article ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per nom. Definitely not an encyclopaedic article. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 09:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a serious incident involving International aid workers in a War zone Harlowraman 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's a serious incident of killing their own people by the so called liberators of Tamil nation, to put the blame on the GoSL. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  15:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I am some what persuaded by the nominators arguments about the timing but I still think if it had happened in the USA or the UK, the potential for AFD might have been much less. Just because Sri Lanka is an obscure third world country, does not mean that this notable incident written with reliable sources in a neutral tone does not belong in Wikipedia. In realilly it is a stub and as more information comes out we can improve this article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with the status of Sri Lanka, it's a news story, Wikinews is thataway ---> Guy (Help!) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a Notable event and wikinews that is notable ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Murder of a ICRC personnel is a NOTABLE issue and Encyclopediac. This is a significant case in the latest of HR violation in the Srilanka. Also as per Thusiyan Watchdogb 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep If the United Nations, UK, US and many other countries think this is important enough to issue official condamnations of this event, i think it is important enough to be in an Encyclopedia.--12345ka 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Can somebody also add Expulsion of non-resident Tamils from Colombo to the list. Wikipedia is being reduced to a scoreboard to keep the latest scores in the conflict.  Shameful really.  Sarvagnya 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - as per CoolBlue. Praveen 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete apart from the initial media coverage into the deaths, a week later there is almost no follow up coverage of the incident. That should pretty much illustrate the lack of notability of the murders. That aside, there is as yet no confirmation that these people were killed because they were red cross workers. Right now, all we know is two men were murdered. That in itself is not significant enough to warrant an article of Wikipedia. Their occupation could have absolutely nothing to do with their murders. As per Guy, unless there is any historical perspective of this incident, it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Coverage of press releases, media statements etc should remain in Wikinews. --snowolfD4( talk /  @ ) 19:31, 12 June 2007 (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.