Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this while reviewing the DYK nomination for it, I think this appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH but I'd like to get community input due to the sensitive nature of this topic. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please look at the article again. It has numerous non-primary reliable resources that have documented a series of attacks on medical facilities in Syria by Syrian government and Russian forces. The subject is not synthesized, hoax, or a fringe theory.
 * I request that this AfD be withdrawn.--05:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * comment there is an npov problem here. Specigically regarfing the bombed facilities use for additional functions such as a hq bunker. Hospitals contain air shelters, power generation facilities, and other infrastructure coupled with some pesumed immunity from attack. So while it is hard to dispute hospitals were bombed, the actual additional uses of the hospitals are vey much in dispute. Sources in general for the syrian war are poor and tend to be highly biased, from all sides. Npoving would reauire referencing regime, iranian and russian sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Referencing regime, Iranian and Russian sources? Yours is a great idea, and I say it without irony. However the basic tenet of WP is that only reliable sources should be relied upon (sounds like a tautology, but wait till the next sentence). This beggars the question "reliable for whom"? The practical answer is "for most WP editors", who share a certain set of beliefs and stereotypes. Now, those shared beliefs are actually what makes consensus on what constitutes a reliable source possible. Iran, according to "reliable" sources, is a rogue state, therefore Iranian sources are unreliable. Same for Russian sources and bad guy Putin. WP could not work otherwise. No consensus → no reliable sources → no WP. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * western sources are highly biased in relation to syria. Don't get me wrong, iranian and russian sources are much worse. But when you are trying to piece together actual intel or an npov article relying on nyt or bbc is fairly bad in this regard. It was also bad in eastern ukraine back when it was really hot, and articles here relied also non westrn sources.Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, the primary question of AfD is whether a subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus meeting WP:GNG. There are multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage regarding Russian and Syrian bombing of medical facilities in Syria.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 598k news stories about Russian Syrian hospital bombings, including many non American sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because hospitals are repeatedly bombed, does not mean there is a campaign directed towards hospitals directly. Hospitals could've been bombed in several different Syrian sub-campaigns, and the bombings could have been due to non-medical use of the facilities. It is one thing to compile a list of hospital bombings - it is another to string them together as a coherent campaign by Syria and Russia. This article makes inferences (on Syrian regime strategy and Russian strategy in Syria (but avoids Iranian strategy in Syria)) without any real basis. It is actually much easier to show an ethnic-cleansing strategy in specific sub-areas in Syria than to piece together a pan-Syrian "hospital campaign".Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Question Hospitals have been repeatedly bombed by U.S. forces too (see ). Is there a U.S. hospital bombing campaign too? What about a U.S. child-murder campaign ? 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is significant coverage verifying that there are such campaigns, than be bold and write it.
 * Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an unsalvageable, WP:POVFORK mess. There are numerous other articles where individual incidents can be covered. AusLondonder (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a place about neutrality, but about notability. The article sites over two dozen non-primary reliable sources which give significant coverage to the multiple and "calculated" bombings of medical facilities in Syria by Russian and Syrian government forces.
 * For instance "A new report released Monday provides fresh evidence that Russian and Syrian government forces repeatedly targeted hospitals in rebel-held areas of the Syrian city of Aleppo and shows Russian efforts to conceal the attacks."
 * Now if there are concerns about wording, than we can reach a consensus on the article's talk page and we all together can improve the article, per WP:WORKINPROGRESS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this is not a POVFORK."In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view."


 * I have not edited the Syrian Civil War or Russian military intervention in Syria articles or many related to that subject area. Therefore, to allege this is a POVFORK is not showing good faith and violates the policy of WP:CIVIL.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no clear evidence that a "hospital bombing campaign" - as defined in Military campaign is taking place. While there is evidence of several instances of bombing of hospitals (though attribution to Syria vs. Russia isn't always simple) - there is no real evidence this is part of a "hospital bombing campaign" and not as part of several other campaigns (e.g. the conquest of Aleppo or the campaign in Souther Syria). Nor is there clear evidence that the hospitals are targeted for being hospitals and not for serving other, possibly, military or administration function for the rebel factions.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - if this was a "hospital bombing list in the Syrian civil war" (or a humanitarian object bombing list) - it could possibly be NPOVed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not object to a move.
 * That said, based on reliable sources, there is verification that there is a campaign to bomb medical facilities.
 * For instance: "The analysis shows that the hospital, contrary to claims by a Russian general, was bombed multiple times. "
 * That said, a compromise of converting this article to a list, is not something I would oppose. I do oppose outright deletion of a subject that has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is another source: "The US has cut off contacts with Russia on a Syrian truce, giving up hopes of restoring a ceasefire, as a Russian-Syrian aerial bombing campaign intensified its focus on destroying hospitals in rebel-held areas."
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And another: "THERESA May has joined five other major Western leaders in condemning Russia, Syria and Iran for targeting hospitals and schools with a bombing campaign that has cost the lives of thousands of civilians in Aleppo."
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those sources say this is a campaign specifically directed at eradicating hospitals Syria-wide - and not part of other campaigns. I am not contesting hospitals (and bakeries. and schools. and several other targets) have been bombed (though attributing specifically to Russian as opposed to Syrian forces isn't always easy). I probably wouldn't have contest an "Syrian-regime ethnic cleansing campaign in X" (X = Idlib, Hama, Southern Syria). Bombing of hospitals in Aleppo was clearly part of the larger Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) - tying this together with hospital bombings in other parts of Syria isn't based on any clear evidence. To claim there is a campaign - you have to "demonstrate that Russian or Syrian strategists formulated a Syria-wide intent to destroy hospitals, and hospitals specifically (not other targets), for a particular purpose." Which I frankly find unlikely (from my knowledge of the subject - it would seem to me that Russian and Syrian forces have no qualms in targeting hospitals if this fits a local need - but that these decisions are made as part of rather disparate campaigns). In Aleppo pressure was applied on the civilian Sunni population (which is hostile to Assad) in a wide variety of means - bombing hospitals was just one aspect - civilians were targeted via many vectors (from direct bombing of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure ( hospitals - but also bakeries, schools, etc.), blockading food and other supplies, and threats of wholesale slaughter) in a concerted effort to make them flee.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Meeting campaign - Is there a Syrian or Russian officer in charge of the "hospital campaign" (e.g. Adolf Eichmann)? Is there a hospital bombing order or policy at the staff level? Are hospitals in Daraa targeted as part of the same campaign targeting hospitals in Aleppo? Is the targeting of industrial bakeries (e.g. ) and other civilian life supporting targets (e.g. water supply - ) separate from hospitals?Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of newsworthy sources specify a calculated and concerted campaign of deliberate Syrian-Russian targeting of hospitals with implications for human rights and war crimes allegations. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not up to us, WP editors, to analyze and decide whether this was (or still is) a targeted campaign on hospitals or not. If reliable sources claim that, then all that is left for us is to decide whether the subject is notable enough to warrant a WP article. Amnesty International reports about "Syrian and Russian forces targeting hospitals as a strategy of war", Reuters' Helen Coster says that hospitals are specifically targeted since "destroying hospitals helps to weaken the resolve of Assad’s opponents" , AP reports that "Russia, too, has been tied to attacks. Its forces backing Syrian President Bashar Assad have been accused of intentionally striking hospitals" , The Independent comments that health facilities in Syria are "seemingly intentionally being attacked" , CBC quotes human rights groups that "bombing hospitals and targeting health-care workers has become 'an actual strategy of war' in Syria" , and there is more. Having said that, the article has to maintain WP:NPOV and mention any common view on the subject. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those are claiming this in a campaign, but rather a strategy or tactic employed as part of other campaigns. To be a campaign this has to be a self contained military operation. If this is a general stratgy, tactic, doctrine, or practice it should be covered as such.Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that most media seems to call it "targeted bombing" or "strategic bombing" rather than "bombing campaign", so if anyone wants to rename the article to something like Russian-Syrian hospital targeted bombing this can be discussed on the talk page to achieve a consensus, but it has nothing to do with an AfD -- IsaacSt (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per IsaacSt, who has rather definitively demonstrated, it seems to me, that the targeted Russian bombing of hospitals in Syria is a very real and much-documented thing. (And of course renaming this article is something that can be resolved by regular editing and discussion). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per IsaacSt and above comments about renaming Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kepp per IsaacSt. If the name is bad, rfcs can be held to change that. L3X1 (distant write)  17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of strong sourcing in WP:RS of the assertion that the Syria-Russia alliance is targeting civilian medical facilities. Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2017 (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.