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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no death in this bomb blast and the sources are like news report. This can't be a major terrorist attack. The death mentioned in the article is about a separate blast.

This should be deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:EVENT and WP:CRIME. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, unless there is any strong evidence that this was part of a wider campaign, in which case merge to the article about that wider campaign. There's no point in having an encyclopedia article about a crime, serious though it is, that only reports it as news rather than give any context to that crime. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good sourcing. per the fact that the bombing has recieved plenty of media attention overall. The delete !vote above points to a guidelines without an specifying, also fails per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the typical "we can not have articles about everything. irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG, many good sources present. Pratyush (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (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.