Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Najran attack


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Renaming and/or addressing POV in content should be handled outside of AFD. RL0919 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Najran attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominate this article for deletion. The whole article is not factual and quite biased since the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen's Information Minister Moammar el-Eryani both denied the Houthi claim, and stated that the video is a fabrication of reality, an attempt to mislead the international media and to "promote fake victories". I had to add the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen's Information Minister Moammar el-Eryani statements since there is no mention of them at all. But I believe there is no reason for this article to remain. Do we create independent articles on Wikipedia based on fabrications, especially that major news outlets like the BBC and the Guardian have stated that this incident cannot be confirmed? --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is better to read Guardian and BBC again, it was written that there was no independent confirmation from Saudi Arabia, pay attention please, from Saudi Arabia, There is full coverage of attack in RSes!Saff V. (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I agree. We can include this inside another article and say the the Houthi movement claimed to do so and so, but to create a whole new article? Nah. Most of their claims sounds like propaganda to me at least so I don't think this deserve a whole new article. We can include it as part of another article and end it with that. But saying 2000 Saudi troops were killed or captured when the whole civil war article only says 1-3000 Saudi troops died is though provoking... Anyways, I don't care but theres very good speculations on the houthi claims as their videos and images they show were inconclusive. However its notable to mention that the Houthis claimed to do this or that. I recommend merging it with an article about the Saudi Yemen border war or another article. best wishes! Graull (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Cosmopolitan268 please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy. The attack got a lot of coverage. The Houthis have captured and showed Saudi soldiers, Western-made Saudi-paid arms and vehicles. We can't remove an article because the Saudi is in the denial phase. Remember that the Saudi has previously denied the Khashoggi was killed inside the embassy yet it turns out he was killed inside the embassy. That is not a reason to remove an article. Catherine Shakdam from Next Century Foundation said that there is no reason to doubt the Houthi statement asserting that the videos and the images which the Houthis have shown, confirm the Houthi statement.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it's very simple and clear to understand, the Houthis claimed to have captured Saudi soldiers, the Saudis themselves denied it from happening, Yemen's Information Minister denied it from happening, international media outlets denied it from happening, and referred to it as one of many attempts by the Houthis to convey fake victories . Therefore, this article cannot be independent based on "claims". It should be mentioned in another article. It's Wikipedia after all, do we base entire articles only on claims? If this is the case, then you'll see billions of articles like these, only then, Wikipedia won't be as trusted as it has always been. With regards to Khashoggi's murder, the officers involved wanted to cover it up, so they reported to the government that he left the consulate. Days later, the government released that he indeed did not leave the consulate and was killed inside it. Let's leave politics affiliation aside, it's Wikipedia that matters here. --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the media didn't deny it from happening, they said they couldn't independently verify the videos. The Saudi and Hadi government are biased, the attack has been covered by lots of independent media outlets. That means it is notable enough to gain an article. You didn't provide any reason why this article should be removed. All you are saying is that it didn't happened because the Saudi said it didn't happened. Lol, we should have removed the article of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi when the Saudi was in the denial phase.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think that just the dispute between both sides about whether this event had taken place as described, or at all, is worthy of the page being kept. Disclaimer: I am, in fact, the editor who first added mention of this onto Wikipedia, but I did not have enough information at the time for a stand-alone article. El_C 16:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to September 2019 Najran incident - it is certainly a notable topic, though its nature is not yet fully confirmed by independent sources.GreyShark (dibra) 20:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the renaming, I was thinking of "Operation Victory from God".--SharabSalam (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Levivich  01:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The incident is clearly notable. Whether the attack actually happened as claimed is doubtful, and this is made clear in the article. (I support renaming to a non-PoV title such as "2019 Najran incident".) Maproom (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * how is the name a POV and how is "2019 Najran incident" a NPOV?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * calling it "attack" means that there was an attack – which is currently the view of only some. Calling it "incident" covers the possibility that there was an attack, and also the possibility that there was just a lot of publicity about a claimed attack that never really happened. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would say that "incident" also implies that the Houthi claim is true. The name also seems to imply that there was an event that took place in Najran which is the point of view of the Houthi movement. Therefore I think the name "Operation Victory from God" is more neutral and descriptive.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Althougt,"incident" doesn't support by RSes, "attack" backes by reuters, bloomberg, aljazeera. As well as I agree with 2019 Operation Victory from God (at least for redirect).Saff V. (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The description and even the title can be discussed and improved, but the thing happened and is clearly notable, so it is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominator didn't notify the creator of the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * why don't you notify me? I wonder if you give advice to the nominator for not notify me for deleten my created article?Saff V. (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename - This is an article about a military offensive, as such it should be renamed Narjan offensive (2019) or something similar.XavierGreen (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to which source,have been "offensive" proposed?Saff V. (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Full coverge in RSes such as reuters, bloomberg, aljazeera,BBC, timesofisrael.Also, there is no independent confirmation that it didn't happen.Saff V. (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * no independent confirmation that it didn't happen — you realize that proving a negative is not how confirmation works. El_C 07:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned that there was no independent confirmation from Saudi Arabia, It is not true because Saudi Arabia has not reacted about the attack, it didn't happend. In other words, Full coverage in RSes such as reuters, bloomberg, aljazeera confirmed the attack have been occurred, however, it is against Saudi Arabia's willing!Saff V. (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Canadian is now investigating the Houthi footage which shows their vehicles getting destroyed in a humiliating way (Houthis use lighters to burn Western-made vehicles).. Also that they are not verified is old news. Now Houthis have released footages of Saudi soldiers speaking to the Camera. TBH, it's not news, the Houthis have been doing this since the war started e.g 2017 but it got attention due to the Persian gulf tensions. Do you think a dictator family state would be able to rule Hijaz and Najd without the western support? Doubt!
 * Anyway, the article needs updating will try to do that when I have time.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Any sane person see the Houthi footage will know it verifies everything they said as the expert I mentioned above said.
 * Also I want to note that western media is biased because their regimes are part of this war and they are anti-Iranians.per UN report They hate Iranians.(see for example, the U.S regime is denying access to medical resources for Iranians). For example they said Houthis could have not be behind the attack on Abqaiq and Khurais; it's Iran, Why???? Because the attack was sophisticated. How sophisticated were the few Bedouin Arabs who went to the U.S. took three airplanes and drive them to the twin towers. That's a much sophisticated attack, why isn't there someone saying a state was behind the attack?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that the Western is asking for evidences when they have accused Iran of many things in the past few months with literally no evidences at all. It's like a prostitute lecturing people about dignity.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep but it needs to be strongly noted in the lead section that the event is unconfirmed by everyone outside the Houthis. Most reliable sources report the claim, but nothing outside Houthi propaganda channels report it as fact. Juxlos (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename The attack took place according to the Houthi statements and Aljazeera, the latter a RS according to WP:RSPSOURCES. This event could lead to a Cease Fire and possible Peace in the conflict Must Keep, do not mind to delete. It may be a error.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2019 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.