Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. It's at the point where there would be no other possible outcome. –MuZemike 01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am going to catch a lot of flack for this, I am sure, but bear with me here, because I feel that this is warranted for the article.

I have been watching this article closely since its creation for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the article covers a part of controversial war and that a lot of the editors to Wikipedia are from or have ties to the United States, which means that these people - registered or visiting- feel the need to interject their two cents into the article. But the more I read the article, the more I am of the opinion that this is eligible for deletion on two seperate grounds: WP:NOT and WP:NOTABILITY.

In the case of the first, What Wikipedia is Not states that this is not a news service, in this case specifically, I cite the following: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." We have been watching the post war coverage for seven years now, and while this attack is more interesting for the video and for the intensity of the attack, in my opinion, their is nothing in this article that justifies its existence. This is even more so when you factor in the fact that the incident occurred three years ago (I will deal with this one more explicitly in the next paragraph). Everything presented in this article could be just a well covered in the two articles we have concerning post invasion Iraq: Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present and 2007 in Iraq.

In the matter of the article's notability here on Wikipedia, I cite for the deletion both WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATION in my argument for deletion. I submit that it has become routine for the media to report on instances in which the military has attack civilians either accidentally or intentionally, and that the deaths of two reporters in this particular case are insufficient justification for the article to remain here since reporters have died in attacks before and such attacks have not been covered here in independent articles. In the case of WP:SENSATIONAL, this incident occurred three years ago, and there for should have long since passed its prime as story. For notability to be satisfied in here in such a way as to allow the article to remain on wikipedia there should have been some definitive change arising from the attack. This article states no change in military policy has occurred some three years on, this contrasts with other articles on Wikipedia that cover similar military incidents (such as 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident, 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, USS Iowa turret explosion, etc) I am forced to conclude that the article as it currently exists is not needed on Wikipedia.

To solve this, I am initiating and afd discussion. Based on the above rational, I can think of three possible outcomes for the article: we can delete it, we can move the information in it to a post-invasion Iraq article such as the two I have identified above, or we can develop the article as it appears at Wikinews (see it here) and leave links to Wikinews in applicable articles here. Regardless of which of the options we choose to go with, I feel that Wikipedia will be better off in the long run since at the moment this incident has no established notability beyond its news-related sensationalism. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the notability of this article stems from the Wikileaks controversy, which has garnered significant coverage in both online and print media. Notability is not temporary, and therefore the timing of the attack or the subsequent controversy are irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep - look at those references. I recently claimed, "I am so tired of hearing WP:NOTNEWS mentioned, because every single time it is brought up, it's being used to justify the deletion of something that is clearly not prohibited by it."  and this is what I mean. - Oh, and read WP:ROUTINE.  Wnt (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL. I filed this for a reasonable discussion on the points highlighted, not be schooled in the various opinions on the deletion rational I have provided. If you disagree with the rational fine, but don't insinuate that I have not read things here when I know I have. It is just a difference of opinion, that is all. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not a personal attack; as I've said before, I think there's something about WP:NOTNEWS is prone to misapplication. But when I read either NOTNEWS or ROUTINE I don't see anything at all to hint that major world news would be considered a routine announcement. Wnt (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a school book example of an RfD as discussed in the background section for Notability (events). As there was significant world wide coverage by various credible sources this article only fails to meet the lasting effects guideline and that is only because at this time it is hard to prove the event will have any lasting effects (it may, it may not). There's also a practical objection: simply moving an article to Wikinews is not possible seeing how this would re-license it under the CC-BY license, which is incompatible with CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and so a lot of hard work would be lost. In the end Ignore all rules also applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucevdk (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I should state that the article is already at Wikinews, with just about the same amount of information given here. That is what prompted me to considered this afd in the first place: the Wikinews version seemed more appropriate at the moment. As to your keep: I can buy an IAR argument, but then what about the example I give below concerning File:Apache-killing-Iraq.avi.ogg. Wouldn't that be an IAR case too? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikinews has 1500 characters worth of information. Our article has about 10 times that amount. NW ( Talk ) 00:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - It's now more than 2 years after the event, and this is still a notable incident. It clearly has enduring notability, and therefore should be kept, per the WP:NOTNEWS policy.- Wolfkeeper  19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I disagree with deletion on grounds of wp:routine or wp:sensation, and I believe that the article satisfies wp:notability. But I am uneasy about how we deal with articles that become caught up in fast-moving news stories, be they articles that pre-date the news story or are created in response to it. I'll be interested to read the discussion.--MoreThings (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ROUTINE boils down to "Run-of-the-mill events — common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out — are probably not notable". The 'level' of coverage of the incident is certainly not routine, and this may be where WP:SENSATION come into play. It's received a lot of attention, but that is because many people seem to think that the death of 14 is not routine and is notable in the conventional sense. Notability in the Wikipedia sense has been established, a glance at the article's reference section shows that it is not trivial. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I respect TomStar81 for making a WP:BOLD argument ... however I agree with Parrot of Doom that notability was met when Wikileaks released the video, and also with Wnt and Brucevdk, that the attack itself was notable because 2 journalists died and because the US government wrote a report about it.  JD Caselaw (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't find it particularly notable of itself. Having read the article I think its padded out beyond beyond the few paragraphs required to describe it fully. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Utterly unpersuasive arguments in the nom, despite its length. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep At least 2 military investigations, repeated FOIA requests by Reuters, an unprecedented leak from a military source of uncensored footage from the attack helicopters and the subsequent coverage all make this a notable event. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regardless of its notability right now, this event is going to go down in history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep per above. Notability (events) notes that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." Sources in the article right now include full length stories in: CNN, The Washington Post, NPR, The Seattle Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Fox News, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Reuters, The Sydney Morning Herald, Al Jazeera English, BBC News, RT, and Süddeutsche Zeitung. Certainly that counts as widespread national impact and diversity in sourcing. NW ( Talk ) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask what has been impacted? It is no secret that the US has killed civilians before, and it is no secret that reporters have died int he line of duty before. Why then is this one event more notable then any other incident involving helicopters and alleged insurgents? Consider the case of the featured video File:Apache-killing-Iraq.avi.ogg. Its the same exact incident, sans the reporters, and no article exists for this incident. In fact the footage shot is filed away in the article Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. If this featured video from the same machine responsible for killing insurgents is not even worthy enough to have a article then why should a article about an incident from three years ago that hot news just for the moment receive a full article? It makes no sense to me, and IMO simply because you have demonstrated WP:V compliance doesn;t mean you have demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You forget one important thing: The US government tried to cover it up for three years and would had kept up doing it, and this speaks for itself. That hardly would had happened if it was just routine. Now the video has been leaked, and it could have important consequences. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I cannot answer that question with the affirmative "this is what has been changed". Neither can I argue that as a result of this incident, something will change. However, this is clearly an incident to which a great deal of attention has been paid by the international media; we would be remiss for not having it. "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." You say that I have not demonstrated how this meets WP:NOTABILITY. That isn't exactly very clear. Could you be more precise? NW ( Talk ) 00:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks TomStar81 for bringing that footage to my attention, you are correct: it is in many ways similar to this incident. Just from watching the video it illustrates perfectly how the use of deadly force is not shunned even when there is (again, judging by what I see in the video) no immediate threat to friendly forces. When I have time I will look into that incident and see if Wikipedia's "coverage" of it can be improved (I'd be very interested in seeing if CENTCOM has investigation reports for this incident as well). Thanks! --Bruce (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per NW. The level of coverage of this incident has been anything but routine and it is very reasonable to assume that it will have lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the arguments for deleting this article but I think it needs to be kept. --Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It might have been just as notable as other collateral damage/friendly fire inccidents (many of which non-notable), had it not been for the controversial release. The media coverege of the video release only would meet WP:N for the standalone video, let alone the events. The fact that it happened 2 and a half years ago does not affect it's notability; if it did, we wouldn't have the article on the Dead Sea Scrolls. BrickBreak (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - notable and well sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep. "...(!)" —Sladen (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep without prejudice for deletion later. Tom, I fully understand your arguments, but I believe that this incident and the controversy surrounding it and the video leak are sufficiently notable. As to your other main argument, I personally dislike seeing NOTNEWS deletions so close to the time it appeared in the news; I find it impossible to judge the lasting worthiness of an event so close to it being brought to public attention (for example, the whole Balloon boy hoax). I suggest this being revisited in a month or so if the article is not substantially changed and/or no further significant changes occur.  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Overwhelming media coverage. The policy does not say that no items covered in the news can be on Wikipedia (which would clearly be absurd), but just says that being in the news isn't a sufficiency for inclusion. It lists: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - do you seriously think that this event (both the original killings, and the leaking of the video) are comparable to some sporting news result or celebrity gossip? Mdwh (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as an incident that has been blown way out of proportion, and Not Notable. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you don't understand Wikipedia. What you think has been blown out of proportion is completely irrelevant to whether this deserves an article or not. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep. Perhaps one of the most significant journalistic "scoops" in history. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; per the nominator's rationale, we would need to consider this article for deletion too, which would be ridiculous. Nominator has (in good faith I am sure) misunderstood the criteria for deletion. This article does not come close, in my opinion. --John (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: I have not misunderstood it, I merely have a different interpretation of it. That's all :) Of course, it is that which makes us different that brings us together, wouldn't you agree? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ("Written rules .. document already existing community consensus ... Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles") —Sladen (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- One of the most significant inside views of what really happened in the War in Iraq. The leaking of a combat video of this length, without censorship and clearly showing the deaths of non-combatants (newsmen) is without precedent. Although the issue of abuse of the rules of war is much more clear cut, a similar case could be made for the deletion of this. Galerita (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- This article meets WP:EFFECT (Which says:An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.) - it is an international incident affecting the United State, the UK (Reuters Journalists were killed), as well as any international body that may choose to investigate the human rights violation. The leaked video will, in my opinion, have lasting effects. Depth of coverage consists of CNN, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian (which is a credible, overseas publication, showing WP:GEOSCOPE), as well as Wikileaks themselves. WP:DIVERSE is easily covered by the multiple newspapers and online sources cited in the article. There may be strong claims that WP:NTEMP is not met; however, I find that since this article meets WP:EFFECT the not temporary criteria is moot. 69.43.65.75 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on this, for now. I agree with much of what TomStar has said...overall, this incident is decidedly lacking in notability. It's not the first, and sadly probably not the last, time something such as this has happened. This isn't even the first time that the US has accidentally killed reporters in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken. That said, as has been pointed out, there MAY be notability in the video leakage and reaction to that. I'm leaning towards Delete, but I'd consider a keep if the article were retooled to put a lot more emphasis on the leakage and the results of that. As it stands, EFFECT does not come into effect here, as there has been no lasting significance from this event as of yet. Indeed, in another year, I wouldn't be surprised if this was gone from the mind of most people.Cromdog (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if this is so trivial, why did the US government find it necessary to keep it a secret for three years? Seems like they shot themselves in the foot, the incident would obviously had had much less effect and news-potential than it has now if they hadn't. So I agree, the important things about this story is the coverup and the leak. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The US government covers up a lot of stuff. That in and of itself doesn't make something notable. Just saying.Cromdog (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But most of the time the stuff they cover up isn't leaked. They must have known it was a pretty big fuckup. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability well established. Looks like consensus has been too, so let's move on. Jusdafax   14:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Clearly a widely-reported and notable event. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - This is a Streisand Effect article, where the sheer volume of effort involved in suppressing information created greater notability and verification. Ronabop (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well it looks like this is a snowball consensus for "keep". Sladen removed the AfD tag but someone else added it again.  Who has the authority to officially close the discussion? Gregcaletta (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do, but I lack the technical know-how to update everything accordingly. Take a "wait-and-see" approach; I suspect that within 24-hours this will be closed and archived accordingly, if not then I will find someone to do that so we can move on to other issues of importance. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 12 April 2010 (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.