Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalola raid

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. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalola raid[edit]

Chad refugee camp raid by armed horsemen where "4 were killed and 6 wounded" and 1000 cattle were stolen. PROD removed because "significant enough, good news coverage, part of the historical record." The Amdjereme raid, which I'm also nominating just involved stolen (and recovered) animals. But WP:NOTNEWS, and these raids aren't going to get any more notable over time--otherwise, we'd have 200 new Wikipedia articles a day about fatal housefires and traffic accidents. Not even clear these events merit full paragraphs in the Darfur conflict article. The incident would appear even less notable if the article didn't violate NPOV by misrepresenting what news sources say about the incident; the Reuters report suggests it could just be banditry unrelated to the civil war (I have no opinion whether it is or isn't). THF (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:SUMMARY#Avoiding_unnecessary_splits. THF (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Reuters report is fully sufficient for notability. I read it to express very strong liklihood tht the event was as the Wikipedia article describes. DGG (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into a as of yet uncreated article. The Reuters stories are third party sources, their role in breaking of the Tripoli Accord and renewal of the Chadian-Sudanese conflict (as asserted in the article above) is a convincing assertion of notability. If this had re-ignited a low scale border war between France and Spain, there would be more detailed coverage on the internet, and no question of notability. T L Miles (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS unless there's some evidence that this had broader implications. Articles on similar skirmishes involving western countries have been deleted in the past, so there's no need to cite bias as being a problem. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I'm sure you are aware, WP:NOT#NEWS says nothing about "events having broader implications". What it does say, in total is:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

By the standard that this is not "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" this clearly is Keep. The article need not prove, beyond your reasonable doubt that it will "get any more notable over time". The discussion of numbers of cattle suggests to me that you consider that aspect unimportant. That has no bearing upon WP:NOT#NEWS. As to notability, the articles both contend these events were escalations in a war. If you do not feel a) this is true, or b) if true, these do not merit an article, I would suggest we first fix the problem by doing some research and then integrating whatever is valuable in them into the existing article of the Chadian Civil War and/or the Darfur conflict. Then you can begin deleting things. Doing so would improve the topics in question. T L Miles (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read the Reuters report and I don't see any misrepresentation in the article. The event is more than routine news coverage because it happened "two days before a highly controversial, scheduled presidential election". Wikipedia has a habit of omitting topics that doesn't occur in English-speaking nations, WP:WORLDVIEW. Maybe for us this is not a significant historical event but it doesn't mean that is not worthy of inclusion for Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.