Deletion of Shuja'iyya Incident (2014)

Comment: No secondary sources, and there can't be: it's all of four days old, so the context is ongoing.  Read Secondary source#Humanities and history if you think that it's possible for '''secondary sources''' to exist at this point.  "|Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable".  You can't verify your speculation that secondary sources will be produced, that anyone will be paying attention to this after more than a few days have passed.  Come back and write an article if secondary sources are produced that cover this incident
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL)

Comment: Can all who comment about this appearing all over the news please see:  . Should the article for this particular battle be separate from the one for the main operation -- think about someone reading this in the future, not when it is news
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Meets  and . Many sources discuss it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DIVERSE||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:GNG|Notable event based on |significant coverage in |reliable |independent sources. Maybe it will require merging in the future but for now it should stay as a standalone topic, albeit with a heavy injection of |neutrality
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:THIRDPARTY||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Multiple 'Keep's above note that there is coverage in reliable sources. But those sources are news reports. Will any of those sources be covering this in a year or two? This is ...—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as a  of the parent article. It recieved a news spike, as does every day's battle. It is not of particular not as compared to any other battle during the ongoing conflict
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: for now - This article fails  to the same degree that Operation Protective Edge fails NOTNEWS because it is essentially a  of a current event. It's not possible to make an evidence based statement about WP:EFFECT, and WP:PERSISTENCE at this stage. The event is clearly notable from a standalone perspective and within the context of Operation Protective Edge based on RS coverage. Building the content in a dedicated article is a practical solution. As Ketil says "Better to collect details here for now, and merge/delete later". Regarding the 'massacre' label, it's not important but it is something that editors must deal with. Many years of editing in the ARBPIA topic area tells me that this will only be a contentious issue for supporters of the belligerents and there's really nothing unusual about a significant proportion of RS and commentators applying a massacre label to an event in this conflict (see List_of_massacres_in_Israel for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: Notable battles have articles despite being, obviously, parts of larger campaigns (or operations if we prefer). Those are not s, but rather sensible applications of the Wikipedia:Summary style policy. So it is here. If it seems like there's a paucity of sources via the "find sources" link above, that's only because Romanization of Arabic|Arabic names are spelled dozens of ways by English media, Talk:Shuja%27iyya_Incident_(2014)#Alternate_spellings|as I noted especially in this case prior to notability being raised as an issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)