Deletion of 2019 Bagram Airfield attack

Comment: There does seem to be significant coverage. However, it is not yet clear if there is '''lasting''' coverage, or if  applies here. But the number of people killed should not be a reason to keep or delete, and decisions on merges do not need to be done at AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: While it may be |too soon to assess the lasting effects of this event, it is also incorrect |to rush the article into deletion. It surely doesn't belong in the category of |routine news reporting, due to the fact that it wasn't just a bombing but a brazen attack by insurgents on a facility of the country with the strongest military in the world, the citizens of which undoubtedly are growing weary of the war, the List of the lengths of United States participation in wars|longest in their nation's history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:RAPID||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: we keep articles which meet . We also have a guideline that say notability is not temporary 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: A  FYI that includes 2015 Bagram Airfield bombing and 2016 Bagram Airfield bombing.  I'm torn between '''weak keep''' and '''merge to Bagram Airfield#Incidents and accidents'''. Not every incident in that sub section has an article, but the more notable ones do. It probably depends on future coverage, so this is seemingly a case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: does not meet  ie. does not have "... lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.", no probs with a sentence or two at Bagram Airfield
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)