Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

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 per WP:SNOW. The event has been reported around the world. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

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

Wikipedia is not a news website - WP:NOTNEWS. This event was rather unremarkable as nobody died, nobody was injured and no changes in the law, or proposals for changes in the law, have been made because of it. Yes, there's been news coverage and sources, but there are also sources for the weather and we don't have a day-to-day rundown of that. Shove some info into the main Times Square article maybe? Stuff like this happens in Iraq every day and the article fails WP:EVENT. A nice story - yes. A good wiki article - no. YOU CAN NOT GUESS THAT THE EVENT WILL HAVE A LASTING EFFECT, AS THAT FAILS WP:CRYSTAL. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This bombing attempt is not a small occurrence. There is ample evidence that the bomb could have done serious damage to the area, and this event will be in the news for possibly years to come. ~BLM (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possibly years to come is a WP:CRYSTAL fail. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving this info to the Times Square article. There's already a mention of the incident there, but it's small and unsourced. A failed car bomb is certainly notable, but probably does not merit its own article at this point. As has already been pointed out, a WikiNews link takes care of a lot. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — According to Wikipedia:Notability (events) if an event has lasting effects and is widely reported it noteworthy. This event will probably have lasting effects (as there will be an investigation and a lot of commentary) and it was definitely widely reported. – Zntrip 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Another WP:CRYSTAL fail. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know it had a lot news coverage? I read the news. How do I know their will be an investigation and lots of commentary? It's going on right now. – Zntrip 00:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But do I really even have to explain my reasoning? Yes, because it was in Times Square and not in Iraq does matter to its noteworthiness. And King, you made your point and others will make theirs; you don't need to comment on every Keep. Lexicon (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (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.