Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millerovo air base 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 keep. Re-closed after a mistaken non-admin closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 30. A relisting is not required per WP:SNOW. Sandstein 07:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Millerovo air base attack[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. The article is based on unreliable primary sources. Namely, unconfirmed reports on social networks and reports in the Russian media. There was no confirmation from either Ukrainian or Russian official sources. This fact is also not considered in secondary sources. Most likely it's a fake. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable sources, including CNN and The Hill reported on it. Furthermore, it has been confirmed by Bellingcat, also considered a reliable source. Mupper-san (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these primary sources are based on unconfirmed messages on social media. --Yakudza (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bellingcat, it was confirmed by geolocation. There's nothing unconfirmed here, in fact, on the contrary, multiple credible sources have backed up the information including by geolocation. Furthermore, in regards to the question of notability, I point to Shelling of Donetsk, Russia as another example of an article regarding the spillover of the Russo-Ukrainian War outside of the internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine. Mupper-san (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mupper Ironmatic1 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing concerns are not best addressed at AfD. It is clear this is not a "fake" as claimed by nom. Bellingcat, which is regarded as a reliable source, confirmed the attack took place. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat only suggested that it was a Ukrainian rocket. More precisely repeated someone else. If there is no secondary source for an article, then it is not Notability. And here only primary source and social media. See Wikipedia:Notability. --Yakudza (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're fighting common knowledge here. Why would you like to see this scrubbed from Wikipedia? Ironmatic1 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability and find there at least one reason why the article can be left. --Yakudza (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Check, every major media outlet. 2. '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.' Check, Bellingcat. 3. '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' Check, the media outlets are not the primary source, they are secondary. 4. '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' Check, the media outlets are not related to the article's subject. 5. '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article."' Check, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below" Should I continue? Ironmatic1 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on Twitter is not a secondary source. I guess we can finish. --Yakudza (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a notable event, the first and only Ukrainian attack on Russian soil.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only (so far) attack on DE JURE PRORUSSIAN/RUSSIAN SOIL = notable. Search up "Millerovo air base attack" or whatever, gives a lot of (generally known) reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawsongfg (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the reasonings above. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per all Keep !votes above. Is so far the only Ukrainian offensive attack on de jure Russian soil. Close per WP:SNOW. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for some argument with reference to notability guideline. --Yakudza (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yakudza: Here's the thing: nobody wants this article to be deleted. It should be closed per WP:SNOW. You also (in the actual delete suggestion) pointed to both WP:GNG and also (kind of) WP:HOAX. I can find sources that shut both of those arguments down, no? Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here, here, and even here. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 13:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really just not seeing how this fails our notability requirements; this article topic has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2022 (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.