Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Hama 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. BD2412 T 01:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Hama attack

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Policy based input would help Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism,  and Syria.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see this as having any sort of lasting impact on the tide of the war, 5 people and a few hundred sheep dying isn't terrible noteworthy in wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. 36 is a very high number of deaths, and the unusualness for the region combined with the high death toll generates notability. Jebiguess (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 36 people killed is more than 5. We haven't seen this amount of death in this region lately. Lukasvdb99 (talk) 12:52, 22 april 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Almost a routine Hamas attack, not unlike the hundreds of others in the past and that will surely happen again. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hamas? I believe this was an Islamic State attack. — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 21:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misred Hama in the title. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:PERSISTENCE seems unlikely to be met; this is a very recent event and yet a current search for "Hama attack" or "Hama massacre" turns up a lot more information on the 1982 attack and 2012 attack, as well as some information on an attack in 2022 . Even searching specifically for "2023 Hama attack" turns up mostly news on a different attack that happened earlier this year . May just be WP:TOOSOON since we can't predict what future coverage of this might exist. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Concern: I ... would tend to think an article on 30+ denying in an attack would, assuming a relatively low-bar of coverage, be sufficiently notable. But, that said, I am concerned that this article has a lot of breaking news coverage. The vast majority of sources cited are just Agence France-Presse articles, apparently at different stages of development (or, at least, I presume that's why most of them disagree with each other on the number dead, despite citing the same sources). Once we combine all of those, I think you essentially have the AFP and the BBC covering this—and the BBC never updated its number past 26.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. 36 casualties is a high number. Abstrakt (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Sources in the article easily pass GNG, no need to pass SNG.  // Timothy :: talk  01:50, 6 May 2023 (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.