Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Parsons Green 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. On the one hand, I'm invoking the snowball clause, because it's abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping the article. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it seems this nomination is really just a platform to get attention for an issue on another Wikipedia site. Each site has its own rules, including its own deletion standards. (Whether starting this AfD with the intent of getting participants on a de.wiki discussion is a violation of en:WP:Canvassing is left as an exercise for the reader.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Parsons Green bombing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The German Wikipedia claims that this article is irrelevant, because we don't know if placing a bomb is clearly and accident and not a terrorist attack and to them, there is no victims involved. So I thought, if one Wikipedia deletes an article because of standards, another one should do it as well. '''If you disagree with the Germans, just leave them a message on their delete discussion. Just write „Ihr seid verrückt ... this is so relevant“'''. --Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a sigificant incident in the UK and should not be deleted. This bombing has been confirmed as a terrorist attack. Quite silly if Wikipedia editors in Germany want to delete a terrorist attack article which is important. Piffle claim for deletion! HectorBrockerbank (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for the protocol: he is one of the German Wikipedians who want to delete the German article, because he thinks terrorism in the UK is irrelevant. And I am not illustrating a point, I am just getting some intelligent, international people to argue if this article is irrelevant or not.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The user requests a deletion and votes against himself. This is a clear case of WP:POINT.--Ailura (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * [...]And you might start to read the articles you are linking to. It doesn't say what you are indicating.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. While Wikipedia is "not the news", and details are still sketchy, it's clear that this was a bomb left on a tube train, which the authorities are calling a terrorist incident. If we delete it now it will only need to be recreated again in a few days, if not hours. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Now confirmed as a terrorist incident by the Met. Any terror attack passes the notability threshold and it's neither here nor there what they do on the German WP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have already linked to this article hours ago on the German delete discussion. That was ignored, because the British police officials aren't trustworthy sources in Germany.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: placing a bomb on a train is not an accident. Silly Germans.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Absolutely ridiculous deletion request.  The claims are wrong vis a vis victims; there are no fatalities but 22 injured.  Widespread news and other coverage.  There is no justification to delete because the German page has done; this would involve following even the most ridiculous (this) of precedents.  Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am on your site, mate. I just wanted to talk to some clever guys about the German delete orgy and their claims, that the police officials in the UK aren't trustworthy sources ;-)--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Just read the page German Wikipedia to see their stricter notability standards. If we synchronise all Wikipedias then we may as well get rid of all fair use images as they are banned on es.wiki Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can an admin speedy close this? It's a joke request, the nominator doesn't even want to delete it Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. German Wikipedia, wtf? It won't even take an admin to close this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a joke request. I just want people to discuss if it is relevant to Wikipedia. Because the German Wikipedia deleted their article.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't care what German Wikipedia does. This is not German Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Definitely not "irrelevant" – it has been comfirmed as a terrorist attack and is clearly notable. If dewiki has different standards they obviously don't apply to enwiki in the same way. –72 (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But this is Wikipedia, so the standards are the same. If it is relevant for us, it should be relevant for the German Wikipedia as well. But if you disagree with the Germans claiming ridiculous things, just write on their delete discussion page.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No they're not, as has been pointed out several times. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:28, 15 September 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.