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The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator, no delete votes. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2007 Baghdad bombings[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a newspaper. This event is only notable in the news now, and will be quickly forgotten. At best, it's just an eternal stub. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Withdraw, they make good points. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable act of terrorism, apparently the worst in 3 years of the war. So the crystal ball assures you that these deaths will be quickly forgotten? How did that work out with the Luby's massacre in 1991 where 23 died? That article even lists the names of each dead person. Are mass killings outside the U.S. inherently non-notable and those in the U.S. inherently notable, or do we look at the coverage in international reliable sources? Edison 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually consider your mentioned event notable for the law it passed, not just the fact that it happened. It doesn't look like it gets much attention, anyway. What I'm saying for this article is that this bombing, while certainly on a larger scale than those before, is not an isolated event by any means. What makes this bombing inherently notable apart from the death toll? What about this is so important that it needs its own article? I could actually apply the same logic to Luby's massacre, but that's for another time. At the very least, should this article be kept, it could use a better title. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. Any major act of terrorism deserves to be documented; just because there are regular bombings in Baghdad doesn't mean they don't all deserve coverage. This would be tantamount to Wikipedia making a POV judgement - this bombing was unquestionably covered by the mainstream media. Walton monarchist89 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and Walton monarchist89. In terms of fataliites, this terrorist attack is most certainly in the 99th percentile (maybe 98th if we consider only fatality-causing attacks). Black Falcon 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the interest of countering systematic bias. There may be few wikipedians in Baghdad, but that shouldn't make events there less notable, and this was a major atrocity. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a stub is generally <1000 characters, for future reference. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my nom then. No point in running this thing through. I'm convinced. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (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.