Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide attacks in popular culture


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suicide attacks in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory, seeking to capture not just every instance of a "suicide attack," but any instance of an action which in the unconfirmed opinion of an editor might possibly be a suicide attack. The list suffers from POV problems in that individual editors decide on their own whether a charcter intends their action to be a "suicide attack" or not. Otto4711 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Surely the solution is simply to add in sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloveoil (talk • contribs) 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete - Merge a handful of entries into a sub-section on Suicide Attacks, but there's truly no need for this. --Action Jackson IV 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I find it highly unlikely that a significant number of these will ever be sourced, hence the article will never be more than original research. Also, the title sounds really, really bad. Feeeshboy 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If no such thing exists: I might be the first to say it... trivia cruft. RobJ1981 08:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- can be sourced and is a useful and interesting article Astrotrain 09:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are not particularly compelling arguments. Otto4711 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge what can be sourced to Suicide attack, as it is not that long to have its own article. It also seems kind of trivial to me. -  An as  Talk? 10:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see how this could be properly sourced. Plus, interesting does not equal notable. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  10:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with suicide attack and perhaps both with suicide Al-Bargit 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with suicide attack. Some of the listed items are notable, many are not.-- Carabinieri 16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as too trivial and insufficiently sourced.-- danntm T C 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Has potential to be a good informative article, and suicide attacks are to be foudn in popular culture. This needs cleanup, not deletion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Beginning of a promising list. Surely suicide attack is already long enough and this should remain a subarticle. Frickeg 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as it stands, it would appropriate to merge, but what's there seems like a good foundation from which to build a solid stand-alone article. Mwelch 09:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." As a list it fills no function I can think of. If someone wrote an article called "Literary depictions of suicide bombings" discussing the way the phenomena is described it would be worth keeping, but just listing occurrences is useless in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum 12:04, 11 March 2007 (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.