Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica : Evidently, some controversy here.  I'm the second AfC reviewer; I don't think this meets WP:EVENTCRITERIA , and declined on those grounds.  asilvering ( talk ) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Kosovo ,  and Yugoslavia .  asilvering ( talk ) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging in previous reviewer @ Mattdaviesfsic : , draftifier @ Robert McClenon : , and the editor who moved the draft to mainspace, @ Edison18273 : .  Keep .  Three different American newspapers chose to run a story about the ambush.  The article suggests that the Račak massacre was in response to this ambush.  The book reference suggests that coverage extended beyond the timeframe of the ambush.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – This is a case where the originator acted as if they were trying to push a non-encyclopedic article into article space.   On examination of the sources (but without reading the book), I conclude that the author was trying to push an encyclopedic article into article space.   Perhaps the author could have spared themselves this AFD by communicating with reviewers, but the only question for this AFD is whether the event meets event notability criteria .  Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 Southeast Missourian Associated Press account Yes Not really, local coverage of a national account Yes Yes 2 Chicago Tribune Yes Yes, because Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper Yes Yes 3 Deseret News Same Associated Press account as 1 Yes Sort of.   Coverage by multiple local or regional papers has a national quality Yes Yes 4 A book As Eastmain said Yes Probably Yes Yes The notability guideline says that national coverage is preferred over local or regional coverage.   The Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper.   The publication of the Associated Press account (national) by at least two newspapers in different parts of the United States should count as weak national coverage.   The mention in a book indicates that historians at least occasionally take note of the battle.   When in doubt as to whether a battle should be covered, covering the battle seems like the right answer.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Both of these arguments hang on the book being a solid reference.  Can anyone get a copy of the book and see what it says there?  I'm unconvinced that it's actually about the subject of the article in any significant way - it looks like it might just be about the subsequent massacre, which is undoubtedly notable ( Račak massacre ).  This event is already mentioned there, in "background", and I don't see that this article adds much more than what is already there.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering : I was able to retrieve the book and find the relevant passage .  To answer your question, no, it doesn't actually deal with the subject of the article in any significant way.  In case the page is inaccessible, it's a sub section titled "In Focus:The Racak Incident" and summarizes the lead up to NATO intervention in Kosovo, dealing with violence in the Stimlje region in particular, leading up to the Račak massacre.  This is the only part where the incident is mentioned: On 8 January 1999, the KLA carried out a well-prepared ambush near Dulje (west of Stimlje) in which three Serbian policemen were killed and one was wounded.  That's the extent of it.  And like you mentioned, it's already mentioned in the massacre article.  -- Griboski ( talk ) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Griboski Thank you so much for checking in on this! -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - No.   My argument to keep the article is not dependent on whether the book is a solid reference, but only whether the newspapers are independent secondary sources.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 16:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't follow - you have only 4 sources in the table, 1-3 are the same, and 4 is not significant coverage.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the newspaper references are identical texts word for word, relaying and copying the Associated Press report, so it's really one source.  It is common for local and national newspapers to publish stories from the AP.  The key part from WP:EVENTCRITERIA is the event's lasting impact and depth of coverage.  It had some impact, sure, in that it was one event in a long series that led to the Račak massacre.  The depth of coverage is minuscule, and little to write about the event itself if we were to extrapolate the meat of the information available.  Hardly enough for a stand-alone articule when it is already covered in the massacre article's background section.  -- Griboski ( talk ) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete See my comments above. -- Griboski ( talk ) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  23:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : But they still have multiple reliable sources.  CastJared ( talk ) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just the one - the AP news story.  The other, the book, is not significant coverage - just one sentence.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:EVENT .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS .  The three newspaper articles are all dated the day after the ambush.  Nothing much since.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG a small skirmish, briefly reported, with no WP:LASTING impact.  Mztourist ( talk ) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 02:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I tend to agree, it was a brief incident, reported on at the time.  No lasting coverage in the news cycle.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per WP:N .  The incident has no notability and isn't apart of a wider offensive.  The "Aftermath" section takes up a significant part of the article and isn't even related to this incident at all.  ElderZamzam ( talk ) 01:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all the sources as demonstrated by Robert McClenon are WP:RS, the article needs some work with the aftermath section.  Durraz0 ( talk ) 15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I read WP:N and the article meets it.  I found a source regarding the aftermath.  [1] This is indeed a significant event in the Kosovo war, and I can recall having read about it in books about the war, i can try to find these sources later.  KleovoulosT ( talk ) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  You can find all of the significant coverage in the world, but if it's all from directly after the event, then it's not WP:SUSTAINED coverage and therefore the subject is not notable.  There's also nothing here worth merging into Račak massacre , and it's already mentioned at Timeline of the Kosovo War , which is probably the most appropriate place for a non-notable event like this.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Melissa Eddy (January 24, 1999).  "Freed Albanians Ready to Fight".  Associated Press .  Comment -- The sources (which all seem to be American ones) establish that the event happened.   The question is whether it is a notable event.   Since it happened in Europe, I would have expected there to be European sources cited.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 19:49, 25 June 2023 (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: no consensus