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.
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
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 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
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
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
@
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!
Fakescientist800013:17, 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.