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 merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the July 2016 Kabul bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is way too sparse to warrant its own page. After all, this wasn't a Western target, so who really cares?! 27.99.78.174 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Completing AfD listing for IP - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. Indeed, the page in question is far too short to justify a spin-off, and the content would be better off in the main article - which is short enough as is. There are only six reactions on the page, one of which (Taliban denial) is already in the main article. GAB^gab 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, I am appalled by the reasons given for deletion. First of all, sparseness is not an issue so long as it is properly sourced, and as this makes the rounds more governments will naturally comment. Give it time — it is a recent event after all, and the event in and of itself is notable.
  But what really grates my ears is how you seem to imply that just because this isn't a "Western target", no one cares and it should be deleted. Seriously?! Wikipedia as it is suffers from systemic bias and you want to exacerbate it by implying that only Western events and things that apparently only impact the West deserve coverage on Wikipedia? The world is more than just the West. Wikipedia is more than just the West. For these reasons (and more!), I say keep for now, and consider merging if there really is no information. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In all fairness, I suspect the IP may have been sarcastic there. GAB^gab 15:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Laugh Out Loud (even though this is a serious topic, dead serious) User:GeneralizationsAreBad, if we had an Understatement of the Year barnstar, I would award it to you. That IP nailed this. The under-recording of acts of terrorism, and the tendency to delete articles about terrorism in the Muslim World and in countries with large Muslim populations (Nigeria, Israel, Uganda) is disgraceful. Although, to be fair, part of the reason is that this is the English Wikipedia, so we do have better articles for the Anglosphere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge (effectively the same thing). (1) At time of writing, this page and the main article are very short and splitting off is definitely not justified. See WP:SPLIT. (2) This is clearly just the latest in a long line of attempts by list-junkies to exhaustively document all the standard predictable condemnations/commiserations, "in case they might be useful in the future", which is not what WP is for. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The significant statements should be merged back into the main article, the rest deleted. I'm happy to note that an intelligent precedent has recently been set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack. (3) The last bit of the nomination rationale is clearly facetious and tasteless and should be ignored, or preferably fixed up by the nominator. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to July 2016 Kabul bombing. Apart from listing the usual "Omg, we feel so sorry for you" reactions, the handful of reactions does indeed not justify a split from the main article. By the way, one word for them reaction repository-junkies: WikiQuote. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. With real empathy for Nom's point. I presume that this is WP:POINTY, a nomination intended to bring up our failure to adequately cover Islamist attacks on Muslim targets. But the taraget article is not overlarge. Until/unless that article become excessively long, there is no justificaiton for a separate article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. Insufficient combined content to warrant two articles. By the way, the number of fatalities in itself does not directly relate to the amount of interest an event receives in the media or on Wikipedia. 150,000 people died yesterday but media do not report it. Gap9551 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. This never should have been a separate entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noteworthy responses to a major event. A universal consensus is being observed for condemnation of terrorism. One may see the censure made by countries and total number of countries of this globe, so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for. Reactions to a terrorist attack that has reached international attention literally worldwide is notable. ZN3ukct (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:NTEMP also prescribes that "notability not temporary". Per First (perhaps the only) keep vote the page should be dealt with WP:DUE. I think this is rule position, but I have seen the fate of page Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack + (1); more importantly the page view statistics and international reactions with huge difference itself speak for humanitarianism and dual standard for terrorism. So with this academic background I stand neutral at this PROD. Nannadeem (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article about the issue, because similar terrorist attacks have a section on reactions. Examples include June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Articles aren't big enough to warrant a split. ansh666 20:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per reasons stated by others. Article is too small to be on its own. Should be simply merged on the attack article itself. --Hyperwq+639 (talk) 14:16, 1 August 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.