Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Kerala 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Kerala bombing

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Created too early based on WP:RECENTISM before the event has attained a lasting historical significance to justify an article, WP:LASTING. Additionally, it violates WP:NOTNEWS as Wikipedia is not intended to function as a newspaper for breaking news. The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - has more than enough coverage and sources to establish WP:GNG, the claim of WP:NOTNEWS could be leveled against any article concerning a relatively recent event. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Religion,  and Kerala.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article has received WP:DIVERSE coverage. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly meets GNG. Would support a speedy keep here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable event. Gianluigi02 (talk), 1 November 2023
 * Speedy Keep - Per Ester8806. This nomination seems to have acted mainly as a spoiler on the event's ITN nomination, so a speedy keep will allow that discussion to be resumed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify. It is inappropriate to claim GNG when only primary sources exist. Please do not create articles for events before sustained coverage is demonstrated through retrospective analysis. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reuters and The Independent are primary sources? News to me. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , per WP:RSBREAKING: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. This is in line with how historiography treats new information coming from news reports. Secondary sources are those that synthesise primary sources. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair. Then again, I haven't seen anyone raise that in regards to the January 6 United States Capitol attack or the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, both articles created pretty immediately after the relevant event as well. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage of this is extensive across mainstream national and regional media outlets, as well as Reuters and AP. Clearly meets notability guidelines. We don't apply WP:LASTING or WP:NOTNEWS to articles that are immediately created after school shootings in the US - not sure why this would be any different. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I really don’t think the policies cited by the nom really apply here, there is plenty of sig cov microbiology Marcus (petri dish&bullet;growths) 23:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The news of this bombing flashed across the media whether mainstream or youtube based. Also had significant coverage in 6 P.M. to 10 P.M. what we say Prime Time. Passes WP:NOTABILITY.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 03:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG.The Question whether it meets WP:LASTING cannot be ascertained as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Notability is clear. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2023 (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.