Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajoura airstrike

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 redirect to 2011 military intervention in Libya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tajoura airstrike[edit]

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

Content fork from 2011 military intervention in Libya. Scant news coverage; does not merit its own article. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a notable strike caried out by allied forces. The death of 40 people in one go is notbale. Chesdovi (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete Although the incident is notable given that 40 people, which were confirmed by the Vatican, died in the air-strike, there is not much information on the incident itself to merrit an article of it's own. And, as it is, it's just a fork from the 2011 military intervention article. If more information or an investigation on the incident surfaces than yes there would be a need for the article. But for now keep it along with the main article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per gng Pass a Method talk 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - It is verified that the event has occurred, but given lack of substantial coverage, the content should be merged into 2011 military intervention in Libya, with referenced material being kept, and the page replaced with a redirect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in WP:RS under the GNG, but should be covered in the main article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 02:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage in WP:RS not sufficient for a standalone article. Chester Markel (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much time have you speant researching it before you come to this conslusion. How comes the Qana airstike is so comprhensive? Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a legitimate argument. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for research, just click on any of the light blue links up top. You'll find that there is virtually no coverage of this incident, even with the vague title that it has. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the NATO bomb error? Chesdovi (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely different airstrike. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I am asking if that strike is notable enough for its own page. I'm itching to make a page on an airstrike. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a variety of sources that address the strike in depth, then go ahead. But please try to keep the discussion here on-topic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2011 (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.