Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Jama Masjid 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Jama Masjid attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reached a consensus to merge this article into Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Commonwealth_Games Saqib Qayyum (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus? I'm currently watching the article you referred to, but I haven't noticed any discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks, A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 09:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If this article is to be merged into the main article as initiated by the nominator, then AfD is not the right medium per merging protocol – at least not now. Regards, A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 09:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games. I'd recommend that this AFD be withdrawn until consensus is clear that a merge is appropriate - and, even then, there is no need to go to AFD. If consensus is there, just merge it. Bring it to AFD if you want it deleted. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached to merge this article into Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Commonwealth_Games. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS minor incident. no fatalities. 2 injuries . one of them minor.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Wikireader41 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First, the consensus referred to above consists of one person on the talk page. Second, this incident has wider implications. Several athletes have pulled out of the Commonwealth games because of security concerns prompted by this attack. --Banana (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The merge proposal was kept open for less than three days. Perhaps a longer period would cause more than one person to comment?--Banana (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody pulled out of the games because of this particular attack. Some athletes did pull out because of general concerns about security but to to think that they would have not pulled out in the absence of this attack is pure speculation unsupported by RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My earlier comment must have been unclear. I remember reading in a reliable newspaper of athletes who pulled out because of this attack. I was not stating my own opinion. Here is a different article than the one I originally read . The relevant quote is "Australia's world discuss champion Dani Samuels said the shooting near Jama Masjid had led to her decision to pull out".--Banana (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment OK so a handful of athletes out of 7000 athletes from 71 countries pulled out and one of them attributed it to this particular attack. what about the 99% athletes who ignored the attack ??  There has been a general concern about security situation in India for a long time especially after the spectacular 2008 Mumbai attacks.  a little while ago 2009 Indian Premier League was moved to South Africa because of security concerns.  nothing remotely similar has happened after this shooting.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't really understand your last comment. I don't see what the Indian Premier league or the Mumbai attacks have to do with this article. I was pointing out why I believe your statement "Nobody pulled out of the games because of this particular attack" is incorrect. --Banana (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right about 1/7000 athletes pulling out of the games due to this attck. I was rebutting your statement that this was notable attack because one athlete pulled.  If you cant see the importance of Mumbai attacks in generating lingering security concerns in India ( most notably the effect on IPL) then you need to educate yourself more about India before commenting on articles related to India. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask you to reconsider your last comment. --Banana (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per WP:NOTE, significantly covered by reliable sources, and far from a routine news item. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage by the press, that is what defines notability. Biophys (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2010 (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.