Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike

Add links
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sg7438 (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 28 October 2023 (keep (+ 1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor event in the ongoing war, damage to a school during an airstrike and not an intentional targeting; not a 'named event' in any sources, no substantive coverage beyond noting that it occurred. – SJ + 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Little, not enough sustained coverage. Would recommend it be merged with other incidents, if not. Recommend deletion. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (merge with 2023 Israel–Hamas war) for the following reasons:
    • WP:NOTE - This article is a single (2 sentence) paragraph that wouldn't warrant it's own subsection, let alone article.
    • WP:SUSTAINED - Notability guidelines require sustained coverage.
    • WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia values enduring notability over mere newsworthiness, and while news can serve as source material, most newsworthy events don’t qualify for inclusion due to Wikipedia’s non-news style.
    • WP:EVENTCRIT - Editors should guard against recentism as current events may seem more important initially than they do in hindsight, often due to varying criteria between news outlets and Wikipedia. When evaluating an event's notability for a Wikipedia article, it's essential to assess its enduring historical significance, coverage extent, and impact, considering factors like depth, duration, geographical scope, etc..
    • WP:DELAY - We should avoid hastily writing articles on breaking news, as initial reports might lack depth and offer a skewed perspective, potentially leading to recentism. Instead, consider first adding information about the event to a related existing article. If the event proves to be notably significant over time, it can subsequently be given its own dedicated article.

- Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a head’s up, WP:NOTE is overruled by WP:NEXIST (evidence and precedent for that was listed above — Aka a 2 sentence, unsourced article survived AfD on NEXIST grounds). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Thank you for the reference; however, I'm not just going based on what exists in this article, but rather what exists period [I.E. the sources covering the story mostly just quote the short statement from the UN, that's pretty much it for the story].
Additionally, looking over at the case you provided, the arguments made there doesn't seem to hold here, and in fact highlight why this article here fails WP:NOTE. The opinion over there stated (emphasis mine):

"I've reviewed the two papers listed in further reading and they both provide in depth SIGCOV of the subject, the papers are entirely about this earthquake. The papers were published in 2004 and 2009, this 1999 event demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE"

This story has received neither in depth/detailed coverage, and certainly not WP:PERSISTENCE.
Another important distinction is that this was a standalone event, whereas this is a relatively minor event within a larger event, making this unnecessary WP:Content forking. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This appears to have been nominated within six hours of its creation with nary a hint of discussion on its talk page, and presumably before the subsequent coverage could be weighed. Seems pre-emptive and perfunctory. Yes, there's lots of news going up now, and not all of it develops WP:SUSTAINED relevance, but once something has been put up, better to wait and see how it develops. Here the topic is more generally notable as a strike on a school that is clear civilian and UN infrastructure, i.e. one of the more tangible war crimes out of many in the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article entirely duplicates content already in 2023 Israel–Hamas war; On 17 October, the IDF carried out an airstrike on a UNRWA school sheltering 4,000 refugees in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, killing six and injuring dozens. Philippe Lazzarini, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, called the attack "outrageous" and showing "a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians. It also partially duplicates content in several other articles, such as 2023 in the State of Palestine. Given that we already have all of this information elsewhere it doesn't make sense to have a standalone article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on whether the material is maintained on those other pages, and if the weight does not decrease with time, and also on whether this page is expanded, which it could be. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also on whether this page is expanded, which it could be How about we redirect this article, and if additional coverage is produced that would enable it to be expanded we restore it at that time? BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we await the result of the AfD? Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was making a suggestion that I hoped would be a reasonable compromise we could agree on within this AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect is a possible outcome, you are the only one suggesting it however and you have actually !voted delete. Why is a compromise necessary anyway? Articles like this are created all the time and not usually deleted. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine event in a war, and more importantly no sustained coverage. This short blurb is based on basically the same press release from the day of the event. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have missed the point in history when bombing UN schools became routine ... Or maybe it occurred over the course of this conflict ... Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This story comes from just one report and had zero sustainable coverage. It could be added to a list of airstrikes during the war, as there's no need for separate articles for each one.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yaakovaryeh. Loksmythe (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sustained coverage, and what coverage there was is superficial Arkon (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am surprised that the article was nominated for deletion! Knowing that the article was nominated on the basis that targeting the school was not intentional!! Please do not consider the statements of the Israeli army as neutral. Israeli statements cannot be considered neutral in this case. There are comments saying that the number of deaths is not large!! Is the killing of 6 civilians in the targeting of a school belonging to an international party normal? The article meets the criteria.--— Osama Eid (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, possibly into Maghazi (camp) or the main war article. Doesn't seem like there's much coverage on it, outside of breaking news reports. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the propaganda war clearly reaches Wikipedia as well, with some POV editors intent on silencing "uncomfortable" truths as the unfounded nomination proves. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda outlet, and there is no doubt that this is notable. Neither can User:Sj prove his claim that the attack was "unintentional" apart from official statements from Israeli spokesmen, and even if it was it wouldn't be a reason for silencing it. --Te og kaker (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to WP:Assume good faith. The original poster and other contributors put forth several points that deserve consideration and response. Accusations or assumptions about others' motives, such as suggesting they are engaging in propaganda, aren't conducive to the collaborative and respectful environment we strive for on Wikipedia. It would be significantly more constructive to address the specific arguments made, providing evidence and citing guidelines as necessary, to ensure the discussion remains focused on improving the encyclopedia. This way, we can work together toward a consensus that reflects both Wikipedia’s standards and the verifiable information available on the topic. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is roughly evenly divided, hopefully not on the basis of views on this war but based on policy and sourcing. Discounting that this might be viewed as a "minor event", this was one incident of conflict in a larger war. As we've recently discovered at AFD with incidents during the conflict in Ukraine, not every incident, however terrible, warrants a standalone article so are there thoughts on where this content might be Merged to as an ATD? Just raising the question as opinion seems deadlocked right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear: I wrote "minor" only in the context of a war with thousands of casualties and hundreds of fully destroyed buildings, not because death in war is ever minor. Damage to one building and 6 deaths, with no other details, when we have only a couple dozen articles on any individual attack or battle in the war, is less than what normally makes for a standalone article. – SJ + 01:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indicative of something else, namely Israeli strikes on UNRWA schools in general. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to Broaden the scope of the article to address this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It already is merged into at least 5 articles:

The only "keep" arguments that potentially address issues like WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:SIGCOV, etc., were based on assumptions that have not been borne out:
  • "coverage will intensify as time goes on"
  • "there will be more coverage in the future"
  • "it seems likely the article will be expanded as we learn more info"
  • "Keep for at least a week, as the event only took place today and articles related to war shouldn't be deleted this fast"

Aside from the speculative nature of this type of reasoning, in the more than a week since the event, there has been little (if any) significant additional coverage beyond the initial, brief news stories quoting UNWRA. Given the unfortunately escalating nature of the conflict and the occurrence of more significant incidents since then, it's increasingly unlikely that this will be recognized as a major event. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/October_2023_UNRWA_school_airstrike&oldid=1182279427"