Talk:October 2020 Kabul suicide bombing

Blanking and redirecting

@TompaDompa: Bringing this here per WP:BLAR- If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. I don't think the article should be redirected. It is notable [1][2][3][4] (WP:GNG) and I believe it is worthy of expansion, meaning that after someone (such as myself) expands it trying to cover it in the list would make the list too long. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think this deserves to have a standalone article for the following reasons:

• The article redirected to doesn't provide much additional context.
• The sources exist to make this article better than a three line permastub
• Adequately covering in the list would make its section of the list too big, meaning this needs to be a WP:SPINOFF, an allowed type of content fork

Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I apologize, I read your edit summary as "pov fork" instead of "content fork". Sorry for any confusion I might have caused. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan#Terrorist attack redirects: The way I see it, we shouldn't have terrorism stubs if the content can be included in an article with a broader scope. Nor should we have list articles or WP:Proseline articles (e.g. List of 2021 Afghanistan attacks or Boko Haram insurgency, respectively) if the content can be summarized—as opposed to enumerated—in prose form. In short, we shouldn't have articles of poor quality. A major part of the problem is that basing articles on news articles does not make for quality content, it (typically) makes for poorly-written, surface-level articles. Sometimes these articles can be salvaged by copyediting to bring them up to at least an adequate standard of quality—I brought 2001 bomb plot in Europe from this state to this state a few years ago, for example—but often the problem is that the sources that would be needed to create a quality article (let alone a high-quality article) simply don't exist. Ideally, we should be using secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts (to borrow a phrasing from a completely unrelated portion of WP:BLP), but the articles are of course usually written/updated when no such sources yet exist (and sometimes, those types of sources never materialize at all). I think we would be better off if we applied WP:NEWSEVENT much more strictly than we do at present, especially as it pertains to WP:DEPTH and WP:DURATION of coverage.

Specific to this talk page: With the above in mind, are the available sources sufficient to write a quality stand-alone article? It doesn't really seem that way to me, based on the sources you listed (and a quick Google search). I think it would be better to focus on writing proper prose articles with broader scopes. TompaDompa (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for taking the time to communicate with me. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)