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The result was Speedy Keep per WP:WITHDRAWN by nominator all opinions are keep. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatla chemical attack[edit]

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

This page is based on unsubstantiated claims and amounts to propaganda. First of all the claim by the Syrian army is that it was a raid that hit a stock of chemical weapons stocked by ISIS so the title Hatla chemical is totally false. the title of the news article is "US denies claim by Syrian army that coalition air strike hit Isis gas supplies releasing substance that 'killed hundreds' whereas the creator has changed it to "US coalition air strike hit Isis poison gas supplies yesterday releasing substance 'killing hundreds', claims Syrian army" Domdeparis (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? - POV is not a valid rationale for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is not POV that worries me but the manipulation of the information contained in the sources and the deliberate changing of the title of the sources to make it seem that they support the information contained in the article. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled chemical attack but none of the sources or the information in the article support this title so as such the whole article is tainted. the title would have to be changed to Hatla air raid (alleged) to be in line with the sources, and if we do that does the subject deserve a page? Domdeparis (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ha ha ha ha ha! Aha ha ha ha ha! The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack is based on unsubstantiated claims and amounts to propaganda. Shall we slap a deletion tag on that as well?!? First of all the claim by the negligent Trump White House report said that "attack" came from the air is totally false, so there's equivalence! The title of news articles change as the day progresses, I recorded the correct headline at the time of writing. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)in[reply]

comment was it a chemical attack, if so by whom? Domdeparis (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment The attack was more an attack on chemicals than a chemical attack although both descriptions fit, it was an attack that involved chemicals so should be distinguished from an air raid as Khan Shaykhun. The Russians claimed it was an "attack on chemicals" in the that case so I suggest we settle on it here. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been reported, and I look forward to being able to add quote after quote from reliable sources that demolish this propaganda. Ooops, that wasn't very neutral of me Exemplo347 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply Ok I get the point but the very title of the article does not reflect the sources. What do you think about moving the page to Hatla air raid (alleged) Domdeparis (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to sidetrack into an RM, this should be withdrawn and the discussion should happen on the article talk. At least before we get a delete vote and have to sit here for a week. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The attack is reported by several RS. I agree that discussion should happen on the articles talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2017 (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.