2017 Pattani bombing : Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT .  A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism ,  and Thailand .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand.  A short documentary was made about one of the suspects.   I've added links from 2018 and 2020.   Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency#2017 , where it is mentioned.  If what Oblivy says is true, then I'd vote keep, but I can't actually find what is mentioned above, or verify that it has long standing significance.  The added links are bordering on run of the mill and don't seem to have much commentary.  Or commentary on the documentary.  If that is provided I would change my vote to keep.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage can be found in the Al Jazeera, CNA, and International Business Times articles.  I don't think run-of-the-mill applies to any of that.  The deletion rationale was about lasting coverage and impact .   The event gets continuing discussion by security researchers like this [32] .  It seems to have gotten extended discussion in Wheeler, Thailand's Southern Insurgency in 2017: Running in Place (2018, paywalled).  The court case was reported as a standalone article in the Bangkok Post, a good indicator of lasting impact, as is the fact that a filmmaker decided to make a documentary about it.  The article isn't about the documentary - it's cited to show that there was lasting coverage of the event via the documentary - and I don't think it's reasonable to require commentary on the documentary.  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyone wishing to vote on this should probably have a look at the substantially revised article.  I've added cites, and have been through most or all of the ones that are in the article.  Lack of inline citations in some places has been dealt with.  I have made my case for sustained coverage and impact and these changes strengthen that argument.  Oblivy ( talk ) 08:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep without prejudice to further merger discussion on the talk page.  There does seem to be just enough coverage to support a stand-alone article, though whether the content (which isn't very extensive) would be better served within the broader context of the conflict would be an editorial consideration.  The timeline article is already quite long and brief as it is, so a lot of restructuring would be needed before it can become a suitable merge target.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 09:28, 30 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep