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.

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep this article pending a determination of whether there is WP:LASTING coverage of it. Therefore there is no prejudice against a future renomination that argues there is not such lasting coverage. RL0919 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bagram Airfield attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two deaths, which does not seem like enough to warrant an article. Seems more appropriate as a mention on a list of attacks in 2019 or something. Andise1 (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move this discussion to the talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once an AfD discussion is properly opened, it remains here until it can be properly closed, Elijahandskip. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we keep articles which meet WP:SIGCOV. We also have a guideline that say notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. Wm335td (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep There does seem to be significant coverage. However, it is not yet clear if there is lasting coverage, or if WP:NOTNEWS 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. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article about a notable attack. There isn't a minimum number of deaths that an attack has to have caused in order for it to qualify for its own article. Jim Michael (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT 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. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A WP:OTHERSTUFF 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 WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Taliban attack occurred as peace talks involving them were taking place. It therefore likely is having major consequences. Jim Michael (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Not sure if this will have lasting major consequences, it did result in a pause in the peace talks. Tactically it was one of the more spectacular attacks of the year: a ten-hour firefight at the main American base in the country, culminating in airstrikes right outside the perimeter, with damage to the passenger terminal on the airfield (source 1, source 2). But I can understand the argument for deletion or merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would disagree with this deletion request. Even though it was 2 deaths there was over 80 injured and it was a not just a bombing, as there was armed Taliban members who attempted to breach a US military base. This was bad enough that the US air force did an airstrike. All of that calls for this to be an article. See 2019 Bagram Airfield attack Elijahandskip (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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 longest in their nation's history. Havradim (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i note that a number of editors here talk of not knowing whether this attack will have lasting effects/conseguences, i am reminded of WP:CRYSTAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2019 (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.