Wiki143:Articles for deletion/7 July 2005 London bombings

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a clearly notable article and an invalid nomination. FCYTravis 04:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings

Violates WP:WIN. This is just a news report with a bunch of copyright infringing images inlined. There are various unencyclopaedic data included on this page, such as phone numbers to call, and a lot of date-critical information. Jacj 04:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep WHAT??? Are you kidding??? Yes, there is some information that doesn't belong on the page, but that doesn't mean a full-blown deletion? This is an important event that needs an article in Wikipedia. Get rid of the information you think is unnecessary; don't request a deletion. joturner 04:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This page is not stable, so the information will change on a constant basis. Plus, the stuff about numbers to call will be removed in due course. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep not good reasons for deletion. --Krystyn Dominik 04:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh? These are bulletproof reasons for deletion. Why else would they be listed under WP:WIN, which is listed as official policy? --Jacj 04:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If you don't like the phone number listings then be bold and delete them. It is not a "good reason" to delete a whole article just beceause you think some information in the article is unencyclopediac. Copyright infringing media can be deleted seperately. --Krystyn Dominik 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - this will be encyclopedic long after the rest of us are gone. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The subject is encyclopedic, just like The Blitz and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are; it's only news because it's recent. As for the unencyclopedic parts, someone concerned about the encyclopedicity of the article will surely be bold, no? — mendel ☎ 04:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as above Andreww 04:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Just when I thought I've seen everything on WIkipedia. Notable now and 50 yrs in the future. --Madchester 04:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. - I think this VfD should be removed from the page, it's just disruptive nonesense. gren 04:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep This article has received over 250,000 page views and is the most visited article on the encyclopedia. There aren't even any bad reasons to delete it. Absurd. --Alterego 04:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Then fix it, dear Henry. That is to say, vfd is usually overkill if your problem is with execution rather than concept. And as a concept is it in any way less encyclopedic than what we've already got on Madrid, Abu Ghraib, etc. etc. etc.? Of course not. Doops | talk 04:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. An (image) copyvio does not mean it should be VfD'd. -- BMIComp (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.