Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 January 2008 Diyarbakir 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 January 2008 Diyarbakir Bombing

Delete per WP:NOT#OR, point 5. Wikipedia is not for journalism. If this event turns out to be notable (doubtful) it should be reported on later, not as breaking news TheBilly (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#OR doesn't forbid current events, it merely forbids being a primary source. As this article has references to WP:RS to back it up, it doesn't seem to be problematic here. Mayalld (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm more concerned about notability. Incidents of bombings are ongoing around the world. Callous as it may seem, people bomb eachother all the time. Notability is not temporary; This particular incident has not had time to earn notability. TheBilly (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to keep the article, at least for the time being. As noted, it's way too soon to judge whether the event will be notable, but the existance of media coverage of the event is a good indication that there is some reason to believe that notability exists. If nothing further occurs, or there is no notable reaction to the event, then we can delete. I'd give it two or three weeks, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well the latest news (The Turkish News) say the numbers of dead and injured people are rising, and with the recent bombing of Northern Iraqi positions of PKK by the Turkish forces, i say it's worth to wait for the time being. --Overld (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this had happened in the US it would already be a featured article that no one would dream of deleting. Counter system bias. Recury (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recury is quite right. Nick mallory (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep attack is already condemned on an international scale and has made its way to the international media. -- Cat ^chi? 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per precedent that terrorist incidents are default notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [Citation requested]. I'd be interested in reading about that precedent if it's recent, say from sometime in 2007 (If from 2005 or so, then it wouldn't mean more than "porn stars can be kept if they have more than 100 films") TheBilly (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 09:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've corrected the article's title. —Nightstallion 09:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recury. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recury. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.