Talk:Kyiv shopping centre bombing

Merge
Merge it in to Battle of Kyev. There are too much pages about this war Gianluigi02 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this is a significant event in the battle that has received coverage in RS in its own right. Jim Michael (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Given the scale of the destruction seen in this video, I also disagree with the merge and agree that this deserves its own article. JECE (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This argument is completely meaningless and isn't rooted in any policy whatsover. Curbon7 (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's based on notability. This was the deliberate destruction of a civilian building in Ukraine's capital city. Russia admits the attack, making the unsupported claim that the building was used by the Ukrainian military. Jim Michael (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a notability argument. Look from the 45-second mark. If you don't have Telegram or a Washington Post account, it appears that an entire city block was levelled, if not more. JECE (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Scale of coverage in RS would indicate a separate article is suitable. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support not a notable event in it's own right. Better served as a paragraph in the main article, since it's just "Ukraine war-cruft". WP:NOTNEWS applies. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it cruft? It's been substantially covered in the mainstream media. Jim Michael (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT and Point 2 of WP:NOTNEWS apply; it does not appear that this event in particular is out of the routine vs other attacks in the context of the current war. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Attacks on large metros such as Kyiv will see many large buildings attacked and bombarded, with casualties. That does not mean we need to make an entire article for every single large structure that gets leveled. The outsize RS reporting is due to Shiny object syndrome due to lack of any significant clashes elsewhere in the city proper. I would oppose a merger if casualties were in the dozens. Though the loss of one life is a tragedy on its own, I don't think the casualties (so far) nor the physical damage or immediate consequences on the war (or lack thereof) warrant its own article. Simply merge it into the parent article, as this whole article can be summed up in one paragraph. RopeTricks (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Support per RopeTricks. This is an ongoing conflict and there will continue to be a lot of reporting as structures are destroyed, with RS they belong in the main article on the subject, unless the event on its own had particular or unique significance. aismallard (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose  The rationale is faulty: there’s no right number of articles about the war, and there will definitely be more before it’s over. The rationale doesn’t refer to any guidelines. This article can probably be expanded to the point all of the sourced information won’t be appropriate for Battle of Kyiv (2022) (e.g., allegations of military use, photo evidence on social media and arrest of the poster). —Michael Z. 21:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a notable event of its own. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Opppose A Russian spokesperson, Igor Konashenkov, claims that the event was a military attack rather than a war crime, which would make the event part of the battle. However, it's a notable enough event on its own, given the sources, whether or not it's a war crime or part of a battle. The claim of not being a war crime is rather dubious given the high rate of outright lies made by Russian authorities (even official COVID-19 data from Russia is dubious), but the fact of the official "justified destruction of civilian infrastructure" claim is itself notable. The argument that there are too much pages about this war is not a reason for merging, it's a complaint to Vladimir Putin (who is unlikely to participate in this discussion, and cannot undo what he's already done). Boud (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This article meets the standards in order to have its own article. Felicia (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Noted by many reliable sources, including Forbes . Sneeuwschaap (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Besides the fact it's seen some notable coverage. the nom seems to have proposed this merger because he doesn't like the number of pages. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions & Citing greater problems. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, per Boud's arguments. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Weapon
What was the kind of weapon used? Sgnpkd (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Seeing the video (which should be included here, as it is in the Timeline article), the final trajectory being vertical, and the projectile quite hot, possibly a 9M723K1 missile from the Iskander-E system . however, unless one day it is specified by one of the parties, it will not be known for sure 152.207.223.25 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)