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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hama revenge massacre[edit]

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

Not notable, heavily biased, and mostly unsourced. The few sources that do exist are unreliable ones. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alleged chemical weapons attack, but the one source doesn't support what the article says. The only party mentioned in the source as blaming Russia for the event is a news agency affiliated with Islamic State and therefore not independent. I can't find anything better which supports what the article says: as with many events during wars, it's very hard to find reliable reports of what actually happened. Take out the unsubstantiated bits and there's nothing left which is worth keeping. Neiltonks (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing does not justify a stand-alone article. Anything that is actually reliably sourced can be covered in larger article on the Syrian Civil War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2018 (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.