Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 United States bombing of Kata'ib Hizbollah


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Johndavies837 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 United States bombing of Kata'ib Hizbollah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This event can be merged into the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War etc SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support deletion This event is not detailed or significant enough to warrant its own standalone article (as of yet). It can simply be mentioned in the aforementioned relevant articles, like other similar targeted strikes. RopeTricks (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Keep, following new details and subsequent events surrounding the event. RopeTricks (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge into any of the above mentioned articles, as the nom suggested. Not sure why an AFD was used to propose merger rather than WP:MERGEPROP. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  15:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didnt propose a merge. I proposed a deletion. The whole article actual content is one sentence. Which one you think is more sensical here, a merge proposal or a deletion proposal?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When I !voted merge, and even as of now, the article had a tag, so I expected more sentences to be added, and I was correct. Now that the article is a proper stub, I believe we should merge it, per WP:OVERLAP. The U.S is currently fighting a war on terror. If we had an article for every action taken in that war, we'd be flooded with those articles by now. -- Puzzledvegetable  Is it teatime already?  22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - in line with previous vote on 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, which was decided as legit article to remain in Wikipedia. The events are practically the same - both bombings against Iranian militias in Iraq with casualties and widely covered by media.GreyShark (dibra) 19:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is very much a significant event that has received wide press coverage and influenced regional government policies. There are much less significant events that have articles.--Franz Brod (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - noticeably more coverage than your routine airstrike. Though I'm curious why thisnis included in the Persian Gulf crisis. Juxlos (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This event is extremely notable and the article should thus be kept.XavierGreen (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Not every bombing of every group/militia merits an article of its own. This will happen again most likely.--Sakiv (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very notable event and must be kept,I do agree that the article needs improvement.Alhanuty (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , after 10 years, would this article still be notable?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to not crystal ball,as that is against Wikipedia policies,but speaking in the present,this is an important event,that could theoretically lead to other developments. Alhanuty (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , two days ago, there was an attack on a U.S. base that caused 1 dead American, and many other injured. It was widely covered in the media. They talked about it for two days until this attack came, they stopped talking about the attack on the U.S. base and started talking about the U.S. attack on some random militia. Per WP:RECENT, recentism is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. And per WP:DELAY, It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the very specific attack you were talking about is cited as the direct reason for this bombing, and the two events are pretty related to one another. Juxlos (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This event is obviously significant, even more so considering that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is now under attack in response to this event. The page should be improved, not deleted. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed,the Event has developed into a major event,Strong Keep.Alhanuty (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Per above.--Catlemur (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:32, 31 December 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.