Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2012 Kaduna church bombings

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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion calls outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012 Kaduna church bombings[edit]

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

News report of a bombing. WP:NOTNEWS. noq (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been referenced with a secondary source (the BBC). Perhaps an additional ref tag may be justified but that does not mean delete. Muslim bombings in Nigeria has been well covered in the news. If the issue is editing style, those can be fixed with normal editing practices but that does not justify the deletion of the article.Tamsier (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it is purely a new report and as such does not belong in an encyclopaedia. noq (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please indent your replies with colons for other editors to see which part of the conversation you are replying to. It makes things much easier. :) The policy you have cited to justify your rationale for deleting this article does not support your claim (WP:NOTNEWS). Current events can be included in articles. Furthermore, this article does "not offer" a "first-hand news reports on breaking stories", but cite a reliable secondary source (the BBC). As such, this article does "not constitute a primary source", and as far as I can see, your grounds for nominating this article has no merit whatsoever.Tamsier (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 14:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has multiple reliable sources.--Cattus ^talk 23:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is verifiable news and its referenced by the BBC and other reliable news sources. This article is related to Boko Haram's terrorism plots against Christians in Nigeria. This meets wikipedia's standards for sources. --Artene50 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV--DBig Xray 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, the article is notable. I have also added additional reliable sources to the article. Tamsier (talk) 19:24, 2 July 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.