Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Kabul International Airport attack


 * 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   delete. Fails WP:EVENT, WP:PERSISTENCE as pointed out. The Bushranger One ping only 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

2009 Kabul International Airport attack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Violates WP:GNG, is an orphan. Jorgath (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination: This was a minor engagement in what's been a long-running and large scale war. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete; less than 2,000 google hits (at this time), with no mentions in reliable news sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 2 people lost their lives through violence, maybe not notable in a country that is currently being affected by the scourge of terrorism. But such an event would be notable in many countries. Notability is not dependent on location hence this article should be kept. Flaviusvulso (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why consider a hypothetical similar event in some other country rather than this particular event in Afghanistan? Notability is not dependent on location, but it is also not dependent on whether people died or the number of deaths. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because if this had have happened in London, say, then the event would definitely be deemed notable. Notability is not location dependant so therefore if it would have been notable in London then it should be deemed notable in Afghanistan.Flaviusvulso (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Notability is not location-dependent, as defined at WP:GNG and WP:EVENTS, but it is also not event-dependent. The reason that a suicide bombing in London likely would be notable is because, due to the rarity of such an event in that location, it would receive significant and persisting coverage in reliable sources. This particular event in Afghanistan did not receive such coverage, most likely due to the fact that such attacks are commonplace in that location. In each case, location is secondary to whether the event is covered by reliable sources, which is ultimately what indicates notability. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On top of what you said, a suicide bombing in Heathrow Airport (the equivalent) that killed two people would not merit its own article simply because of the rarity of the event; it would need to get enormous and persistent press coverage too. It would, however, merit a mention (perhaps even its own section) on both the airport page and the page on terrorism in the UK. (Did not add London links because it's a hypothetical and I should be doing actual work) - Jorgath (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As Black Falcon said, we need to focus on whether or not this event is notable. While this event is, in my opinion, notable enough that it should be mentioned on Wikipedia, it is not so notable as to rate its own article rather than being included in War in Afghanistan and/or Kabul International Airport - Jorgath (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The topic does pass the general notability guideline since it has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", including reliable news sources. It does not, however, pass the more specific notability guideline for events, which requires "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time" (emphasis added). There was a flurry of routine news coverage of the bombing just after it happened, but there has been no persistent coverage of what is a minor footnote in a major war. At most, this deserves a short mention in the article Kabul International Airport, and it is already mentioned there: see the section 'Non-aircraft related'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to include it in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) article instead, not expanding the Kabul International Airport mention beyond what's already there. Otherwise, I agree with you and I wish to revise my rationale for deletion to be in agreement with yours (basing it off of WP:EVENT instead of WP:GNG), as you expressed it more coherently than I did. - Jorgath (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The attack probably does not merit a mention even at War in Afghanistan (2001-present) – although... I wonder if there's a list of Taliban suicide attacks – but if you find a suitable place, then by all means. On closer examination, I think you're right that the mention at Kabul International Airport should not be expanded. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Black Falcon. Doesn't meet the threshold set by WP:EVENT. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Being an orphan isn't a rationale to use for deletion.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had revised my initial rationale for deletion above; it may meet WP:GNG, but it fails WP:EVENT - Jorgath (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with all the above reasons for deletion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a car bomb in Afghanistan is unlikely to be notable unless it kills somebody really important. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (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.