Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Baghdad police recruitment centre bombing


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Baghdad police recruitment centre bombing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOTNEWS  §hawn poo   02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - an attack that killed 28 people and injured another 57 seems notable to me, we have other articles like 2008 Balad bombing that were less significant than this so why not keep this one. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - While Marcusmax's argument sounds a lot like Other stuff exists to me, I do see notability in this event, at least for now. Due to the magnitude and coverage of the event, it is more than just something that happened that carries no historical significance, which is the premise of WP:NOTNEWS --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the risk of having OTHERCRAPEXISTS pointed out to me, I'll point out that the wiki already has 9 aviation accidents and 3 South Pacific tropical cyclones or depressions, not counting those in other regions, for 2009. I don't think any of those should be deleted, but I've never heard a convincing reason why attacks of mass violence should be considered less notable and thus less deserving of articles than weather disturbances and plane crashes. - BanyanTree 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Certainly seems like a reasonable notable encyclopedic topic to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It takes a certain about of judgment to tell when something is reasonably sure to be part of the historic record, and the use of that judgement tells me at least that this will be--the historic record is quite detailed, after all--all terrorist attacks of this sort will be part. An approach to the judgment can be attempted by seeing the type of coverage of the more sober news sources, the ones conventionally called "journals of record" DGG (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep - Obviously notable act of mass murder. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep — covered by reliable sources, killed many people (suicide attacks aren't that common in Iraq). The news sources seem to indicate that it shows a change of tactics of suicide bombers (towards police recruitment centres etc). That is notable, because this one event had other implications.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely not true. Sorry, no other way to put it. Suicide bombings have been extremely common in Iraq; so have suicide bombings of police recruitment centers: see List of suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. Being so close to the incident date, it is currently not possible to determine the historical significance of this event, and I feel this will not be historically significant. WP:NOT should be must more stringently applied as news is not content suitable for an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The incident is obviously notable enough to be on the Main Page.SPNic (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the people at In the News believed it was worthy does not mean they are right. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. WP:NOTNEWS. This is news. The wikinews article is a copy of this one (this one was made first though, to be fair). Also, this just a single suicide bombing, and not even a particularly devastating one at that! See List of suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 for a list of the HUNDREDS of others - with plenty that have received more coverage, have had far more wideranging consequences, etc. And if this kept, could someone who's not a lazy turd (that's me) add this to the Major Iraq bombings template? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A terrorist attack that killed 28 people is most certainly notable, whether they are common in that particular country or not. We should not discriminate against an act of mass murder because there are other acts of mass murder around! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does every small (indecisive) skirmish of a war deserve a page? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently yes. I don't have a problem with any of those articles either. - BanyanTree 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the arguments to keep offered thus far focus on the very real double-standard at work. The "historical notability" of a terrorist attack that claimed 28 lives on American, Australian, or British soil would undoubtedly not be in question. However, I believe that this bias stems primarily from the fact that deadly suicide bombings are, sadly, not uncommon in Iraq. Moreover, reliable sources (particularly English-language ones) do tend to give disproportionate attention to events in the Anglosphere. For me the key question is whether coverage of this bombing constitutes "routine news coverage". In my opinion, the answer is "no". Reports of results of minor sports games, announcements of local cultural events, and "Today in Iraq"-type daily reports of violence in Iraq are examples of routine news coverage. However, I do not think that we should consider international coverage of an event—as the main subject of news articles (in the BBC, The New York Times, and elsewhere) rather than as a note in one paragraph—to be routine coverage. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment From other editors' previous experience, it's very hard to get articles which are displayed in the 'In the news' section of the front page deleted. It might be best to close this AfD and try again in a few weeks when this is out of the news and its significance can be better assessed. It would be helpful if the nomination also explained why this violates the guideline - single word nominations are bad form as they don't provide other editors with guidance. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This article is featured on the front page of Wikipedia. It's unbelievably notable. ScienceApe (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is certainly a notable article because it is in the news.  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – A strict application of WP:NOT might suggest that deletion is the correct outcome, especially since many (not all) of the arguments to keep are rooted in one or more of the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", including WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:ITSNOTABLE (assertion != demonstration), and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The argument to "delete", on the other hand, seems more policy-based: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. ... Routine news coverage ... [is] not sufficient basis for an article."


 * 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.