Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2015 Kobani 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The result was Withdrawn. I'll propose a merger next year then if there are no further improvements. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Kobani attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The content is already copied to Kobanî. To be honest, there's not much to explain the significance of the violent attack by allegedly ISIL/ISIS. Reactions or no reactions, they wouldn't make the small article larger. I tried to redirect the article to Kobanî, but it has gotten reverted. Even if the event is notable per WP:N or WP:notability (events), the article hasn't expanded much very shortly. Also, June is nearing the end, but even July attacks wouldn't make the article larger unless the media can overemphasize the tragic event as "big" or "bigger" than Wars in Middle East overall, similar to how they did to Haiti earthquakes or a hostage crisis in Sydney or a school attack in Pakistan. George Ho (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a redirect target of Siege of Kobanî - more details on military background. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a completely separate event to the Siege of Kobani. It happened long after it ended, and was a separate attack. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Event is notable. Short article length is not a valid reason for deletion. With the available sources, it can be expanded. Just no one has done it yet. The Western media has not gone into in depth detail on the attack in some areas. There is likely more detailed information in non-English speaking sources. And more information will come out in the coming days. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - we need to make sure people have an accurate and up to date chronicle of ISIS activities. I know NEWSPAPER, but this is how people use it. We owe it to the people who were killed in this vicious attack.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This event is certainly notable and the fact that the article is rather short at this stage is not a reason to delete it. The French language article is much longer and is well sourced, which shows that the sources necessary to expand the article are out there.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick Keep. This is a notable attack, with an important amount of victims. Yug (talk)  18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - We have a long article about a pretty inconsequential attack in France the same day, yet someone wants to delete this one where dozens of civilians died? Ridiculous. And yes, of course more can be written about this. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * changing vote to keep - later media reports suggest greater death toll - responses by Patrick Cockburn in this article are insightful as to relative media coverage of major mass killing in Syria compared to minor, failed terrorist attack in France. This looks like it may get enough coverage/responses to justify its own article rather than just a merge. Wait for a week and re-assess. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - one of the worst massacres of the Syrian Civil War. One should be driven by a very strong POV to suggest this event is "not important" or "not notable".GreyShark (dibra) 21:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This event has not gotten the attention in the English and Western media that it deserves, especially compared to the other attacks. Which is why the article page is so small. This is entirely a cultural bias, and commentators like Patrick Cockburn have suggested that this is due to weariness over conflicts in Iraq and Syria and that large scale massacres there do not shock us anymore. To delete this article would thus to enforce an entirely arbitrary cultural bias on the English Wikipedia that does not represent a worldwide view. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (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.