Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasts in Nairobi

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 WP:SNOW. Usually 7 days but no strong sign of anyone wanting the article deleted. Some improvements on not making sound like the news, but that's no strong reason to delete a this moment in time. (Non-admin closure) --Chip123456 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blasts in Nairobi (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)

Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I conquer with your stance that Wikipedia is not news. But again news is the first rough draft of history and I believe that History belongs to Wikipedia. These blasts are not a usual thing and they are connected with the Operation Linda Nchi initiative. These blasts are are revenge mission by the militia as a result of being fought by the Kenyan defense forces in Somalia ^stephenWanjau _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to cover wp:gng--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Recent blasts in Nairobi have importance beyond being just news items. Also I think it's not a bad idea to lump them into one article, instead of creating separate article for each occasion. Julius Sahara (talk)

Yes all the blasts are expected to be covered in this one article, when I find some more time after a consensus is reached here I will continue working on expanding the article. I agree the tone of the article as it is, sounds like a news item and with a little wikification would warrant it Wikipedian;) Probably it is because the blasts are a current affair.^stephenWanjau _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – relevant article about something that happens to be news, that doesn't mean it won't be relevant in the future. I agree that it's a good idea to keep these incidents in one article rather than create separate articles for all the incidents, as long as they are related. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (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.