Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike : Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider , but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release ; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment.  Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is: At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter.  Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added.  And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones.  The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic.  The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability.  The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record.  The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well.  I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources.  nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war .  Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable.  It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED .  Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article.  nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable).  I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We had an article within hours of the initial attack.  Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable.  Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be.  nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war .  Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards.  Seems WP:GNG .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war as a premature SPINOFF.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , per Gidonb.  Galamore ( talk ) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes.  Unlikely this will receive sustained coverage given it doesn't even have IRS SIGCOV now .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war .  Insignificant on its own, covered almost only around the event.  ---Lilach5 ( לילך5 ) discuss 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete Hi, So I think Billedmammal has a point but I can also understand merging so both options are good I think.  ElLuzDelSur ( talk ) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge