Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 New York City attempted 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. Closing early and invoking the snowball clause. Consensus has emerged in favor of keeping the article for now and revisiting the article in a few months to see whether the event has received lasting coverage.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 New York City attempted bombing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not relevant to the Encyclopedia Have a Merry Christmas ChocolateRabbit  05:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DELETION RATIONALE - Before this is speedily closed for lack of rationale, this incident, with extremely minor injuries (headaches, etc.) and little damage, shows no signs of WP:LASTING significance. Editors will argue the initial boom of news reports is notable but WP:EVENTCRIT states: "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting". Reiterating the same story fails these necessities and displays what what Wikipedia is not. Any possible chance of notability can only be found if the subject is significant months from now in in-depth analysis. For now, however, there is nothing notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually, this was just a bad nomination and I am not even going to entertain it. Per WP:RAPID which seems to be a popular response. Revisit this in a few months I suppose.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep - If a religiously inspired ISIS terror attack in NYC is not notable enough for Wikipedia, then what is? XavierItzm (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - NOT OK (Nighthawk NZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawknz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant International coverage in Reliable  Sources in  across all major News outlets worldwide clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID the only question arguably is whether it meet WP:LASTING in the long term ,that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is clearly keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the minor terrorist incidents in New York City have articles, some don't. Timmyshin (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- not this again. A bomb went off in NYC. Significantly notable. If you think this won't have lasting political and security significance in the U.S. and New York specifically, you are kidding yourself. Do the admins a favor and withdraw your nomination. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- meh, nobody died, only the suspect was significantly injured. First world problems and a news item of uncertain encyclopedic significance. I suspect we won't see lasting impact from this. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 08:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:RAPID. Considering - White House claims Trump's immigration plans could have prevented NYC attack, CNN (family visas policy suggestions by Trump) - this quite possibly might have a LASTING effect if indeed US immigration policy is modified. Since SIGCOV is met, and LASTING is the sole notability concern, RAPID applies - it is too soon to assess future coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:RAPID there is a suspect in custody, it looks like there will be a trial, there is discussion of immigration policy. Deaths do not make an article notable, there are a lot of murders that don't satisfy notability. This is notable for the same reasons the Halloween attack was - likely to have an effect on policy, legal proceedings, etc. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep Passes WP:NCRIME due to WP:INDEPTH coverage in national and international press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep see 2017 New York City truck attack. This is part of a long history of terror attacks in NYC. The 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt had zero deaths, but is clearly notable. -- Callinus (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reasoning as .E.M.Gregory. PvOberstein (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The first attempted suicide attack in NYC since 9/11 is definitely of lasting significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only bombwise. That one actually killed people, this one didn't. Neither have articles. Nor this one or this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Documents the continuing danger of Islamic terrorism to the US. Not a minor incident. Intent was to cause many deaths. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, plenty of RS. The NOTNEWS concerns can be addressed through editing as needed. South Nashua (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was an international Islamist terrorist attack in the busiest and most powerful city in the Western hemisphere. It caused severe disruption to many thousands of people and received a great deal of mainstream media coverage. The only reason that no-one was killed is that the bomb didn't detonate properly. It has also prompted government plans to stop extended-family chain migration, the method by which the suspect gained legal residence in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rare attack in New York, suicide bombings or attempted suicide bombings are not very common in the US, so therefore it has encyclopedic value.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy 'Keep, obviously. Appreciate apparent withdrawal of this nom so I am not clear why it is open. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .... and trout the nominator. No reason given to delete. I misunderstood-, this was not withdrawn; the strikeout at top was from an early delete who changed their !vote. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep More then enough sources included for this article to pass WP:NOTNEWS. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 22:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:RAPID; there's no chance of this being deleted while it is a breaking news story. It will be impossible to demonstrate that there will not be lasting coverage for at least two weeks. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This violates "not news". Wikipedia is not meant to be a news paper, and we do not need articles on every minor incident when someone tries to bomb something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep An attempted bombing at New York City's busiest Subway station is notable, especially when considering the potential foreign policy and immigration policy implications. C(u)w(t)C(c) 03:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I figured we would have to have this discussion. In so, I imagine that To say that this is notable gives too much credit to the would be attacker. Considering the lasting effects of this have been minimal in my opinion, and that Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), I'm going with delete. I know it won't be, though, because we as editors will always favor something with clear sources (and the internet age generally grants that to us). So, maybe we delete this in a year or two, after a second review. I don't really know. Wikipedia's guidelines really need to be updated with topics similar to this one.&#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have gave this one a month at least before a deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and consider snow/speedy close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and revisit in two months time per WP:RAPID nomination. Störm   (talk)  06:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely notable. -  Bagel7  T's 10:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes general notability guideline because it has coverage and could result in US policy change. It is indeed relevant to the Encyclopedia Have a Merry Christmas. epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no violations of WP policy here. יבריב (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - This one does not need to go on for 7 days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Likely going to receive more coverage in coming days. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (& Your Counterargument Doesn't Make Any Sense) I don't see what the problem is. This is a widespread, terrorist attempted attack in the heart of Manhattan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSpeed (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The explosion barely reached the people it annoyed. That's not widespread. And nowhere near the heart. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's definitely not the Crossroads of the World by any means, but sure, let's go with Central Park as the heart...On a serious note, that is a pretty weak counterargument, even if it was sarcastic. Times Square is the true heart of Manhattan based on the hundreds of thousands of commuters and tourists that travel through it every day. Central Park is only the geographical "heart" and it really isn't that far away, nor is it as busy as Times Square, Grand Central, or Penn Station. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Northeastern civic anatomy isn't my strong suit, I'll admit. But I know small numbers, and three people with ringing in their ears is indeed small, next to the dozens of thousands of commuter and tourist ears Tinnitus suggests would've rung in that tunnel with or without a would-be bomber, and continue to ring as usual today. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the tinnitus thing, I agree. More people get ear damage by standing on the 14th Street–Union Square subway platform every day. But this is still somewhat notable, similar to unsuccessful attacks like the April 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot or New York City landmark bomb plot. It just doesn't have to be that detailed of an article. epicgenius (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - a no-brainer. Deep, diverse worldwide coverage, notable per WP:COVERAGE. The duration criterion is too soon to judge, but likely to be long-lasting, as the trial of the suspect will certainly be newsworthy. -Zanhe (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am not entirely convinced that this will have a lasting impact, but so far it seems to have renewed American fears of Islamic terrorist attacks on their soil. Whether any political developments come out of this will likely determine its notability. Dimadick (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID, media coverage --Jeremyb (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Things explode every day, people fail to kill people and Americans are abuzz about jihad. This was big while it was unfolding, but now that it's not, there's not much worth remembering. It's like a less-impactful Antigo prom shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I want to encourage people to pray for Akayed Ullah. Having a Wikipedia entry to reference as background information about him and the New York bombing attempt is invaluable as a resource. Without the Wikipedia entry it's very hard to find reliable material through which to inform people about this person who they can be praying for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.247.249 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 December 2017 (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.