Talk:2021 Kabul airport attack

should there be a standalone article for the subsequent drone strike?

i see the material regarding the drone strike on ten civilians is integrated into this article. unless i am mistaken, policy suggests that ten fatalities qualifies for its own article. the issue was touched on in archive 1 but dismissed or ignored after sept 2 2021. given that these ten people had nothing to do with the suicide attack at Karzi airport it seems unfair to include it here. if this suggestion is indeed in line with policy, what would be a good title for such an article? tia 74.46.254.44 (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, NO! The volume of available info about the strike ITSELF (not biographical info about the victims) would be what justified a separate article - frankly I don't see that being likely unless there were a major inquiry, which seems improbable. The number of dead is - in itself - irrelevant. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

gross. but acceptable. thanks. 74.46.254.44 (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Abdur Rahman al-logri (suicide bomber) into 2021 Kabul airport attack

Not enough information about the bomber for a stand-alone article. DTM (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:BLP1E (though in this case he's recently deceased) exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also agree, for reasons already given above. Little likelihood of significant amounts of further info justifying an article. Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree: There isn't much information on him. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Not much information on the guy and there probably won't be more (not enough for a standalone article), known for only one event. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Again, WP:BLP1E applies to the recently deceased too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and performed the merge, personally I don't think we really need to name the guy but since that's effectively the only info on his article that wasn't already here, it wouldn't be much of a merge without it.BSMRD (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the info about the 29 August drone strike in the section US airstrikes be split into a separate page called August 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike. The content of the current page has become too much about that particular drone strike (more than a third of the article by my estimate, 7 out of 20 paragraphs, which includes the lede but excluding small single sentence paras.) rather than the bombing. And there's sufficient information to create a new article with how the strike happened, the military's wrong claims being investigated, reactions to the strike, the military's own investigation. Even the Congress is going to establish multiple investigative committees to investigate it [1].

The strike is certainly notable on its own. Not just in the news but in the real word itself as politicians, human rights organisations, the White House, Congress, have come out about it. Besides the civilian ire which has also affected Biden's ratings. The article naming proposal might not seem suitable to some, so you are free to suggest your own name. Info about the strike can be retained here in brief. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My judgement would be that AT PRESENT, it makes more sense to keep the drone strike within this attack article - to which the strike was after all an intended response. If coverage continues/increases that could change. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The drone strike has had massive coverage and fallout. Probably nearly as much if not more than the attack. There's no sense in keeping these two together. While the attack did motivate the US to start conducting drone strikes against ISIS, that's the only connection. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support as the strike has received significant media coverage, from across the political spectrum. We have articles on much smaller violent attacks, along with much less political fallout from this- I'm surprised there aren't is an article already. There would be enough sources to make an article on it even before it was confirmed that zero ISIS members were killed in the attack. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 14:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

support, as seen above. someone did try to write one about a month ago but it was declined: Draft:2021 drone strike against ISIS-K. i would've titled it 2021 Kabul drone strike and the year might be superfluous if there is no other Kabul drone strike article on Wikipedia. 74.46.254.44 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation issues

I checked but apart from missing an ending ">" besides the closing ref code "</ref>", there's no problem User:HadesTTW. That could be easily fixed by simply adding ">" at the end of the broken source. Why do you keep changing the citation format to "cite web" instead of "cite news" when there's no point and the latter is designed for news sites in specific and changing which part of the citation goes where, as well at the same time? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I only noticed that it was formatted incorrectly and so I used the automated citation tool to fix the citation. Apologies if this caused any issues. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)