Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Kharkiv 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Kharkiv bombing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a news article on a bombing in Ukraine. Although there are reliable sources saying that event event occurred, there is no indication of why the bombings are notable. Compare this to the Volnovakha bus attack, where there was international reaction to the event. None of the sources have any indication of any international bodies making a statement on the event.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating this article for the same reasons as listed above.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Neither article meets WP:GNG. Pure WP:RECENTISM, plus Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOT. Does no harm, and is properly cited. § DDima 05:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Notable. Please do not delete. I will ad more references and add more content in time. I support DDima entry. Thank you. --Babestress (talk) KEEP: I have no opinion yet on the 2006 article but I don't really think it's notable. I will continue to edit the 2015 article no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babestress (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a stub yet and should not be deleted. There are thousands of articles like this one and not delete them so i do not understand why this article should be deleted. I translated with google. --Kristijh (talk)
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on notability. Most notably, we have WP:EVENT. None of the WP:EVENT criteria are met. What's more, we have WP:NOTNEWS. Most things that appear in newspapers are not notable. This event has no notability. There have been many bombings in Kharkiv over the past year. None of them are notable. The argument that "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article that does not meet the standards provided by our guidelines and policies. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to this evaluation, there have been no reliable sources following up on either event since the inception of the articles. No, I see no value in articles surrounding Kim Kardashian's buttock implants, but they've (careful choice of wording, naturally) both instances have recieved an inordinate amount of the 'media'. The parallel may not be intuitive, but it sums up what is relevent and what is hype very nicely. If it wasn't evident earlier in the piece, WP:OTHERSTUFF does exist. Does it have encycopaedic value? A decisive and resounding, "NO". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete 2006 article as empty; no opinion yet on the 2015 article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fail WP:EVENT, and are a product of news-style reporting. It does do "harm", in that it creates articles that do not meet our policies. These events can be mentioned at Kharkiv, and in fact already are. There is no justification for stand-alone articles. The main article is neither too long, nor is there enough content to justify it. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * keep plenty of sources. given the dysfunction at wikinews, these "newsy" articles have plenty of precedent here. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not according to our policies, such as WP:NOTNEWS... RGloucester  — ☎ 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS is deletionists best friend, always used even in cases like this when there is clear evidence of all aspects of WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It fails all aspects of WP:EVENT. We don't need more cruft. Try following Wikipedia policies. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep good sourcing, covers WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to an event mentioned in world media, etc etc.... --BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also may I say that an article being short is not a reason for deletion. short article does not equal non-notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While WP:RECENTISM may only be an essay, considering that the event is part of a much, much wider series of events (namely a war), I don't see how it could possibly pass the 10 year test. There has been no new articles or details since the event. By your reckoning, this would make thousands of reported events currently in the many timeline articles for current wars, insurrections, etc. equally as dedicated stub-worthy (i.e., WP:CRUFT). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete both While I can see a minimal cases for notability, the essential problem here is that Ukraine is currently in an all-but-named war with Russia, and that such bombings are now commonplace. A building being blown up in a decade of peace might be notable; one being blown up in the middle of a war is just another statistical increment. In the 2006 supermarket incident, nobody was killed and the building only slightly damaged.  Pax 08:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete might be worth a line in Ukrainian crisis or similar but not that noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Deadly terror attack during political rally in the heart of a great city widely covered in the international press. Meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both or, at maximum, merge the 2015 bombing into one of the relevant surrounding articles (per my earlier comment above). The 2006 bombing simply doesn't add up per WP:EVENTCRIT. A handful of RS reiterating the same initial report with no knowledge of who or why simply places it firmly in the WP:NOTDIARY category. I'm not certain as to why both have been nominated in the same deletion discussion as there's nothing to indicate their having anything in common other than the fact that they occurred in Kharkiv. Whatever the case, the 2006 article is a prime case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The 2015 bombing is related to an ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine, not a standalone article. It's a terrible event, but we don't dedicate articles to every event in the history of conflicts, and I don't see how WP:NOTPAPER is grounds as a defence for grabbing any headline and running with it per WP:RECENTISM because, somehow, WP:ITSIMPORTANT over and above every other event reported on that day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor had two ivotes for delete. thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Try counting how many articles are being voted for in the deletion review, . My first vote was for the 2015 article; the second addresses both articles. Which article are you !voting for? You've only mentioned 'article' in the singular. No opinion on the 2006 bombing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for many reasons. Article clearly meets GNG. NOTNEWS fails here fairly quickly. This event has had a regional, nationl, and international impact on the war, the economy in Ukraine, as well as on its currency devaluation. Also, the subject is part of a series of notable war-related events that, while individually notable, have a profound impact on the foreign policy of superpowers. As for the state of the article itself, it is bare bones, and needs a lot of work to flesh out event, responses, and pact, not to mentiom contextualizing it. Thamls. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (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.