Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Aden (2019)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pursuant to Deletion review/Log/2019 November 26 which identified a need for more discussion of this deletion and of a clear consensus. This is a procedural nomination; myself I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS where one cannot find anyone calling it "Battle of Aden" yet, if ever. No prejudice towards recreation if historians start talking about it as a thing, but synthesizing a history article out of nothing but a series of news reports is Right Out. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to disagree with Mangoe's assessment of this topic as WP:NOTNEWS. While it hasn't been called the "Battle of Aden", it has been referred to as "Aden battles" in this Nov 21 report by Xinhua. NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because that report indicates it is getting WP:SUSTAINED coverage months after the battle has ended. Koopinator (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the battle/battles lasted for many days and many changes happened in the aftermath.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per NOTNEWS. The Xinhua report doesn't satisfy SUSTAINED at all. The "Aden battles" are only mentioned in passing, and as the nominator has noted, nobody calls this particular series of clashes the "Battle of Aden", unlike Battle of Aden (2015) and, to a much lesser extent, Battle of Aden (2018). A few details could be added to the timeline in Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This report on 16 November from the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs uses "Battle for Aden" to describe the clashes in August. If that's not close enough, we could always move it to Battle for Aden. Furthermore, i disagree with your interpretations of SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS. SUSTAINED does not make any mention of whether or not the sustained coverage needs to be in-depth or not, and i can't find any essay of sorts that suggests that this is a requirement. However, i have found essays, such as WP:NOTABLENEWS which state that NOTNEWS is intended for "countless non-notable events with zero lasting impact" that "attract the attention of the global media for a day or two.", which i don't believe would apply to multiple weeks of clashes that continue to be covered months after they happened. Furthermore, since these clashes received multiple in-depth reports over several weeks, i believe that the event would qualify WP:GNG as having received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Koopinator (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Clarityfiend.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for the arguments presented by Koopinator. --2x2leax (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with User:Clarityfiend. In fact Battle of Aden, Battle of Aden (2015), Battle of Aden (2018) should be deleted or redirected to Yemeni Civil War (2015–present); and added with timelines. We have 4 redundant articles here talking about the same on-going war - Jay (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Redundant"? Having articles about campaigns and battles in a war is pretty standard in Wikipedia. See Battle of Stalingrad. These 4 articles aren't the only articles about battles and campaigns the Yemeni Civil War, by the way. There are 50 of these. See Template:Campaignbox Yemeni Crisis. Merging all of these into one article or timeline would bring that article well past the Readable prose size, and would be completely unreadable. Koopinator (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing these skirmishes (40+ dead over 3 weeks) to Stalingrad (somewhere in the region of a million dead)? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am comparing them in terms of being an battle from a wider war, not in terms of the battle's size or destructiveness. LeQuattroStagioni's argument was that having articles on battles from a wider war is redundant and should always (await clarification) be merged to the parent article. I'm pointing to the precedent of the Battle of Stalingrad to argue that this isn't the case, as well as saying that if this logic is followed consistently in the Yemeni Civil War then the 49 other articles on battles and campaigns in the Yemeni Civil War should also be merged, but in that case the Yemeni Civil War article would well exceed the Readable prose size. Koopinator (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify if you think an article on a battle in a wider war is always redundant to the parent article, and if not, could you explain why you'd consider Battle of Aden (2019) and Battle of Aden (2015) redundant as opposed to say, the Battle of Stalingrad? Koopinator (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the Battle of Stalingrad because it has been intensively analyzed and documented. The same can't be said of the so-called "no-called" 2019 "Battle of Aden". By your standards, we should have hundreds of articles covering every minor skirmish of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now this thread has moved from the question of redundancy to notability. I've already made my case that this article satisfies SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS to your original NOTNEWS argument above. "By your standards, we should have hundreds of articles covering every minor skirmish of the Korean and Vietnam Wars." Not every skirmish, but skirmishes where you can write more than one or two sentences, which also pass WP:GNG, such as Battle of Yeosu should. so-called "no-called" 2019 "Battle of Aden" Do you still think this is an important point? We already have sources referring to this as the "Battle for Aden" and "Aden Battles". Moving this article to a new title is trivial. Koopinator (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Koopinator, my point of redundant article in this matter is due to they are the same “war” and still ongoing (Battle of Aden, Battle of Aden (2015), Battle of Aden (2018), Battle of Aden (2019)). I disagree to continue with separate articles by year such as 2019, 2020 and on. Imagine if all on-going matters have running year, then it would chaotic, don’t you think? Take Brexit for example, do you think it is wise to have Brexit 2016, Brexit 2017, Brexit 2018, Brexit 2019, Brexit 2020 until the final decision happens? Then we may have Hong Kong Protest 2019, Hong Kong Protest 2020 until it stops? To me, the best way is to compose in a timeline explaining the chain of events. That way, readers can see clearly how it starts and how it ends. All these 4 articles should fall under Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) with a clear timeline explaining the chain of events by year. Look at how it is done for Brexit from 2016 until now. Therefore my vote for this article is “delete”; and would vote the same for other “Battle of Aden” if anyone nominate them in AFD in the future - Jay (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I so far find your argument the most convincing. I do wonder what Clarityfiend thinks of this though, since his original delete vote seems to indicate that he thinks that Battle of Aden (2015) and Battle of Aden (2018) are "proper" articles. Can i also assume you'd want Lahij insurgency, Battle of Mukalla (2016), Fall of Zinjibar and Jaar and Aden unrest (2015–present) to be merged as well? Koopinator (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Koopinator, it is normal for an event to have sub-articles, however, the creation of “sub-article” must be due to special event or importance. If you looked at WW1 and WW2, they all have other articles connected to them. I have not read the 4 articles you just posted but if these articles have strong reasons why they should be on its own as per wiki policies, then they can stay. Creating sub-articles by year is never a good practice. This is just my opinion -Jay (talk) 10:32, 22 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.