Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack (2nd nomination)

2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack
• Articles for deletion/2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack (2nd nomination)

2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack (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)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING .There were no deaths and all the accused were acquitted.The case is closed due to lack of evidence and it appears no further appeal has been made against the acquittal. Clearly there no lasting impact here.There is also a issue of WP:BLPCRIME about naming the Alleged preceptors in the article Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Fairly recent AfD ended in No consensus. Nothing has made me change my previous stance of keeping the article. Per WP:GNG, good sources/references. Third party sources. Per WP:INDEPTH. BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note - The first AFD was in September 2016 -- by no means is that considered "recent". "Per GNG" is a WP:ATA as is "per indepth".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fairly recent" is actually a good description. It's more than a year so can be relisted but as the coverage is ungoing the question that rises is "why again?" gidonb (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment AFD was in September 2016 and closed as No consensus and it clearly fails WP:LASTING and all coverage is routine and there is no ongoing or continued coverage and no news reports beyond WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC) .

• Now there are news reports that the incident took place ,trial started and they were acquitted and some books merely mention the incident none of them are indepth and none of them discuss the incident specifically in detail even the brief mention is a general and there is not even one article gives significant coverage about the incident clearly fail WP:INDEPTH and nothing after 2012 when the verdict came out failing WP:LASTING.
• 1 Brief News about the incident 2004
• 2 Brief News about the incident 2004 .

A brief news story about the trial there is no continued coverage between 2004 and 2010

• 3 Brief news that the case starts 2010

A brief news story about the acquittal no coverage between 2010 and 2012.

• 4 Brief news that are acquitted 2012

None of the references are indepth all are clearly routine news .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - the fact that the accused were acquitted does make throwing a bomb at a house of prayer a non-terror act (either by someone else who wasn't accused or reasonable doubt) - and in any event terror/non-terror status (or the number of victims) of the alleged incident is not a factor per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG - what matters is whether there are lasting and persistent sourcing. In this case, we have some - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The acquittal may be relevant in terms of removing of the BLP names currently in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Çomment thanks for your work .I leave it to the closer but going through some of the links most of them are mere mentions and clearly lack WP:INDEPTH and fails WP:LASTING nothing after 2012 when the verdict was given .
• 5 merely mentions unknown assailants threw bombs in 2011
• merely mentions unknown assailants threw crude bombs in 2006
• merely mentions about Incidents of bomb blasts in Parbhani,Jalna and Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 2009
• By Asghar ali Engineer merely mentions unknown motor cycle riders throw bombs in 2006
• Mentions about the blast By Asghar ali Engineer mere mention in 2005
• Not sure whether the others are Reliable sources but this mere mention published in 2008 and mentions in 2008 .
• (Note mentioned the year when the Book or article was published) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Eight years of ongoing national coverage in the world's largest democracy, with a notable free press. Covered in a number of books. Article does need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is no continued or ongoing coverage for 8 years in 2004 the incident takes place it is reported then in 2010 the case starts and in 2012 they are acquitted .There is no continued coverage beyond routine news that is for 1 day in 2004 ,2010 and 2012 just 3 to 4 days the newspaper have really covered it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This incidence was mentioned in a Paksitani newspaper literally this year (2017). The mention may be passing, but keep in mind that it has been over a decade. I feel that still satisfies WP:LASTING, especially since it "act[s] as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This was the first in a series of Hindu nationalist attacks in the years following such as the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombing. The concerns about WP:BLP seem reasonable though. Kamalthebest (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks .There has no significant coverage at anytime and could not find one article solely dedicated to this incident apart form the news reports anytime since 2004 and Thanks for pointing it out this the first piece I could find after 2012 articles through it briefly mentions it along with Jalna, Parbhani (2003) and Purna (in 2004) . Hence feel it fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete failure of WP:LASTING. There is clearly no reason why this article should be kept, it has still not gained any notability despite it occurred so long ago. Orientls (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:EVENT due to lack of proper coverage by media.

• Only one result in Google news search

Non-notable event as there was no casualty. Accused were acquitted. It's not even proved what was the motive behind the blast. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails WP:EVENT because of the lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short. Lorstaking (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Editors need to actually read the sources. Passing mentions are not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact. I think there is a confusion between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. News and book searches show that this attack was and still is widely covered in India. gidonb (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING .Editors need to actually read the sources. Notability is being presumed on basis of non existent significant coverage sources reminds one of Don Quixote .86.168.36.155 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG and it was only reported initially and has ended up with nothing interest that it warrants a separate article like Marvellous Spiderman notes, i.e. fails WP:LASTING. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)