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 Procedural keep. While the content and structure of these articles may be similar, several editors have pointed out that their claims to notability are not the same. As such a single outcome is not possible, and arriving at individual outcomes for 100+ articles is not feasible in a single discussion. I would recommend renomination in much smaller batches, after searches for sources have been completed. Vanamonde ( Talk) 06:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

2020 May Kado massacre

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

2020 May Kado massacre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Most of the articles in this category ( Category:Massacres of the Tigray War) are all almost identically structured and most cite only one source that is specific to each particular incident (Atlas of the humanitarian situation). This source is a data table listing dates and numbers of casualties. Each line on that data table does not warrant its own article; as tragic as these events are, they do not fulfill the notability guidelines set forth in WP:EVENT. They also have some clear WP:NPOV issues. WMSR ( talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WMSR ( talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WMSR ( talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. WMSR ( talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: By my count, there are 107 (+/- 3) articles nominated. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep all these articles by default. A mass deletion would constitute an overwhelmingly bad example of the demographic bias in en.Wikipedia. All the massacre articles that have a solid academic source - the Atlas of the humanitarian situation - are justified. If/when the communications blockade is eventually lifted, and when there is a full international enquiry on an appropriate scale, then other sources will become available from international courts. Have a look at the 22 or so individual massacre Wikipedia articles for the Syrian civil war, and the 23 or so individual massacre articles for post-WWII France. Sure we need good sources, but Wikipedia aims to cover knowledge of the world, not just reproduce existing biases in the mainstream rich-country media. Individual discussion of articles that are doubtful, with a few at a time rather than 106 all at once, would be ethically acceptable on en.Wikipedia. Try engaging in edits of the individual articles rather than calling for deletion. Boud ( talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Boud: The Atlas is sourced on WP:RSP#ResearchGate which is considered a generally unreliable source because it is self-published material and should not be the "lynch pin" of these articles. Platonk ( talk) 20:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A general case is not the same as a specific case. Boud ( talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Boud: I will quote the policy, WP:GUNREL, because you either didn't read it or you don't agree with it. Regardless, it represents consensus. Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. Platonk ( talk) 00:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - very happy to delete all based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NOTDATABASE (add in a dash of WP:MEATBOT as well) WMSR, so long as you can tell us which of these don't only cite Atlas of the humanitarian situation. FOARP ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Those articles with other reliable sources were not included in this nomination. Those are: Adigrat massacres, Axum massacre, Hitsats massacre, Irob people, and Mai Kadra massacre. The nominated pages are all either entirely or heavily sourced to a single line on a data table in an unpublished research paper. WMSR ( talk) 16:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  The first and third statements here are false. The difference between all and many is fundamental. Boud ( talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge. Most of these aren't independently notable, and the full list of victims violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The advantage of a merge is that individual entries can be contested and un-merged. Higumburda massacre is an excellent example that should NOT be a stand-alone article; the two sources that mention the massacre are simply repeating White Propaganda in a non-critical fashion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Apparently, there is collusion by WMSR and Dawit S Gondaria to do this. Are they running a bot to put labels on articles that I created? >100 articles labelled in 5 minutes; they cannot have looked into each article individually. This vandalism. Above user comes then with "WHITE PROPAGANDA" argumentation ??? Looks like POV collusion of Ethiopian government supporters. A massacre of 3 people in US would be notable but 13 people in Ethiopia would not? Rastakwere ( talk) 19:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Rastakwere, I used AWB, not a bot, to add the deletion tags. This is not vandalism, nor is it a violation of any policy. It is a policy violation to engage in personal attacks and it is inappropriate to accuse others of wrongdoing without any evidence. I did not "collude" with anyone, and I am not an "Ethiopian government supporter". I strongly suggest that you strike these attacks, and limit your comments to the merits of the AfD. WMSR ( talk) 19:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  1. What about the WHITE PROPAGANDA thing, not by you, but another user, yet it seems a fair argumentation in your eyes? 2. Your action comes in the same time with Dawit S Gondaria. 3 And, tell me, is there also a reverse AWB, I am not familiar with all such stuff. Rastakwere ( talk) 19:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hi, @ Rastakwere, I'm not sure white propaganda means what you think it means. That said, I did not make the comment; you will have to ask @ 力 what they meant by it. To your second point, it is perfectly normal for two people to be online at the same time. I am confused about your last question; AWB is a way to complete repetitive tasks quickly on Wikipedia. I am not sure what "reverse AWB" would be. Again, I ask that you please keep the discussion on this page limited to the topic at hand and strike any personal attacks in your previous comments. WMSR ( talk) 20:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  "White propaganda" here means that the sources all only refer to the massacre as "according to Tigrai Media House", which I don't feel is sufficient for these stand-alone articles to exist. There is a fig-leaf of separation between that group and the Tigray rebels; yet without some source showing they are more interested in journalism than in promoting an agenda I will assume they are doing the latter. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

"White propaganda" - strange terminology. And in those 106 articles, I do not remember often referring to Tigrai Media House; I know that it is propaganda, just like Borkena or ESAT. Rastakwere ( talk) 20:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• By the way, this is not the first time that issues mentioned are raised, with discussion, and concluding in a Keep decision. Two or three times. I should look up the talk pages of the articles, because I do not keep track of it... Rastakwere ( talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please do not !vote twice. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete All, a sample of the sourcing of these individual articles show that the nominator is correct, while the sourcing may at first glance seem sufficient there is actually almost no cited coverage of these massacres, the only individual coverage being a directory listing. There are several massacres that have received sufficient coverage, but those ones have not been nominated here so they are irrelevant to this discussion. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I did not check more articles, but at least the Mahbere Dego massacres (which are on the list) did have international coverage by BBC, CNN and Bellingcat. Nuretok ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. All of them or draftify them. A lot of dubious sourcing going on here. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Sportsfan 1234: You want them draftified so that the backlog at AFC will increase? Over a 100 articles? A much better solution will be preferable... Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment The 2021 Mekelle air strikes article can stay up. I don't know why it was added here (guessing because it was part of the massacres category) as it fits WP:GNG and WP:DEPTH. It just needs a major update and some rewriting. -- Ue3lman ( talk) 00:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• comment @ Rastakwere you should cease your baseless accusations. I already expressed concern about the ‘Atlas’ source months ago, and i noticed user has been negatively affecting other articles. I'm not voting here since i opened an ANI [ [1]], but i needed to respond to this agression. Your articles are being scrutinized, deal with it. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 01:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Some of the articles like the Togoga airstrike have extensive coverage and more than enough information while others are little more than a listing of the names of the people that died. Deciding to delete MOST of the coverage of the Tigray war with a flick of the wrist is not smart. We should go through each individual article and decide which ones should stay and which ones should go rather than mass deleting.-- Garmin21 ( talk) 03:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Agree. -- Ue3lman ( talk) 03:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with the policy on this, but I have no objection to removing those articles from the nomination. WMSR ( talk) 11:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete all fail WP:BASIC. Twitter is not RS! Mztourist ( talk) 14:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Twitter sources are not essential in these articles; I will clean up that already in the articles. And update with more recent "Atlas" reference. Rastakwere ( talk) 19:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It will be unwise to delete everything(including those that ​have a better coverage). I'll have to agree with Garmin21 who said “We should go through each individual article and decide which ones should stay and which ones should go rather than mass deleting.” Then I'll also add that we shouldn't think of draftifying the unsuitable ones, instead they should be worked on or deleted -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: for details about the use of sources in these articles, see the above (collapsed) text. Rastakwere ( talk) 05:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep: And re-nominate in smaller batches, say five maximum, as it is impossible to fairly analyze 107 articles. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure I'm familiar with a procedure that dictates this. These articles were created en masse with a cookie-cutter template, and I don't think it's our responsibility to pore over all of these articles when the vast majority do not meet WP:GNG at this point in time. -- WMSR ( talk) 04:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Many of the articles have copy/pasted material between them, but quite a few have independent editing histories and multiple sources. The difference between many and all is fundamental and should not be trivialised, especially in the context of what is asserted to constitute crimes against humanity or genocide in the opinon of several reliable sources. The author of many of these articles does need some guidance by other editors, but that doesn't mean deletion of articles. Proper respect for the work that has been done would constitute good faith. Boud ( talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge of smaller articles may be ultimately appropriate, not all of them depend solely on that "Atlas of the humanitarian situation" ref and standalone articles may still be good in some cases. But agree that keep should probably be the outcome here and definitely not a blanket deletion without consensus. - Indefensible ( talk) 21:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I no longer agree with Curbon7 Procedural keep some are more covered than others, while others are claims relying solely on the Atlas source. Special attention should be given to the reaction section whether claimed event is actually covered in the sources as edited by Rastakwere, and if so whereas through independent/reliable sources. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 21:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It's also not fair that if an editor creates one dubious article it is removed, but if they create 100 bad articles they are kept. Perhaps these could all be moved to Draftspace, with any editor limited to one AFC submission from the set? I will accept pings for AFC review myself if need be. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I mean it's not a true keep, it's just a "let's take this in smaller batches at a time". 10 per batch per day is a reasonable amount, that means we'd only be here for 10-ish days. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ User:力 i think your proposal and that of User:Curbon7 basically comes down to the same thing, the few that may be notable/sourced will be filtered out and kept, and the majority that relies on the Atlas source will be scrutinized in a renomination in smaller batches. 10 a day is certainly do-able. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 01:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep At least one of these events has good sources - so keep them all. We aren't going to pick them apart one-by-one. Try posting one a day or something for the next 100 days. Nfitz ( talk) 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep/Merge A lot of these articles don't have any good substance to be notable besides a reliable source reporting on it or a big number of people dying. We should keep the few actually notable articles and merge the rest into a list like 2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo attacks, 2021 Democratic Republic of the Congo attacks, or List of massacres committed during the Eritrean War of Independence. So basically an article like "Massacres during the Tigray War", "Airstrikes during the Tigray War", "Mekelle Airstrikes", or something along those lines I don't know. I also agree with what some of the others have said and put these guys in the draft space if need be. Wowzers122 ( talk) 20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment 2020 May Kado massacre, 2020 Selekhlekha massacre, 2020 Wukro Maray massacre only relies on the Atlas source. 2020 Shire massacre has a Guardian ^[1]source, but it tells about a event in early December not 15-17 November(Atlas source) no death toll is given in the Guardian, 200 is given in the Atlas. In all 4 articles the reaction section goes like this; ▶ The “Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation”,[1] that documented this massacre received international media attention, particularly regarding its Annex A, that lists massacres in the Tigray War.[4][6][7][8] He uses a CBC ^[2], Euronews ^[3], World Radio ^[4], and The Guardian that doesn't mention the claimed events ^[5]. I will gradually go down the list and mention it here, rather than repeating it on every single talk page. Please share your take on these articles? Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep, no prejudice against renominations - the timing of this suggests that there's no way that a suitable BEFORE check was run on each article. The current sourcing is, of course, insufficient (and Boud's keep reasoning is crystal-ball flawed) - but their nature means that certainly any of them could well have other already-existing sources...and they've not been suitably checked for such. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep. Of the 10 that I spot checked, most of these have been marked as reviewed by new page patrollers, which means that NPPs did a WP:BEFORE and found sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. For me to support deleting all of these as a batch, I'd need to see evidence that a majority of them do not pass GNG, which I find unlikely considering the number of unique NPPs that have marked these as reviewed. I suggest AFDing individual articles or a smaller, more problematic batch rather than this large batch. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge in List of massacres in the Tigray War. It is quite common for civilian killings and attacks targeting civilians during wars, but not all massacres are relevant. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Especially in cases where few casualties have occurred, such as Wereta killings (3 deaths), there is likely to be little coverage from sources. It is best to gather everything into a list ( examples). -- Fontaine347 ( talk) 12:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment 2021 Shire massacre only relies on Atlas source. Megab massacre, 2021 Selekhlekha massacre relies on ^[6] which is a claimed victim list based on social media. 2021 Wukro Maray massacres relies on ^[7] for the perpatrators section however EEPA has a disclaimer below which can open a debate about it's reliability in a renomination, also EEPA doesn't report 11 victims in Wukro Maray which doesn't match the article. In all 4 articles the same CBC ^[8], Euronews ^[9], World Radio ^[4], and The Guardian ^[10]. that does not mention the claimed events. From the 2020's and 2021's artciles, the only credible and covered article is the 2021 Mekelle air strikes. I will be moving down the list to the letters and menion it here. Share your take on these articles. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 14:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep per Nosebagbear. Also don't rush to delete. These are ongoing events and the true scope of atrocities will not be known until the war ends. But we have evidence to suggest this will have WP:Lasting effects [2]. Also creating List of massacres in the Tigray War is a great idea and could include documentation of massacres that would not merit a standalone article. VR _talk 14:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: Per WP:DINC, a.k.a "Deletion is not cleanup". Dunutubble ( talk) 18:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: It beggars belief that anyone would argue that a massacre is not "notable". If it's notable if it happens in America, it's notable if it happens in Africa. The lack of abundant sources is merely a reflection of media bias. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Mikrobølgeovn:, while it may be a reflection of media bias for those massacres to have less sourcing, that alone has little meaning. Wikipedia notability is about the sources - the exemptions with direct call on other aspects are a short, numerable, list - functionally, GEOLAND and NPROF#C1. Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Nosebagbear: Any policy that regards these massacres as not notable is Eurocentric and should be ignored. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Mikrobølgeovn: What does race got to do with this? So there should be no treshold for bad articles for claimed events in Africa? Even the single Atlas source may not be independent of the subject, the man leading the investigation Jan Nyssen ^[11] is a geographer and has spent decades living and working in Tigray. I'm also baffled nobody called out the editor of these bad articles of including sources that don't mention the claimed events. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 09:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment On with the articles starting with letter A; Adi Hutsa massacre, Addi Gabat massacre solely relies on Atlas source. Addi Berik massacre, Addi Deqqi Beqli massacre, Addi Esher massacre, Awulo massacre and Adi Hageray massacre relies on Tghat ^[12] a claimed victim list based on social media, in case of Adi Hageray massacre another user pointed that Tghat is not reliable ^[13]. April 2021 May Kado massacre relies on Twitter post. Ala'isa massacre it relies on Tghat source, a claimed victim list based on social media, and Jan Nyssen ^[14] in Ethiopia insight article, however the article doesn't mention the places claimed by article, Jan Nyssen statements was added in blockquote, even though source/statements doesn't match the claimed event. Ari Giyergis massacre does mentions the telegraph ^[15] however Telegraph reports the place as Karagiorgis not Ari Giyergis, the article claims Ari Giyergis is sometimes translated as Karagiorgis, this needs to be verified with a source. Agbe airstrike seems credible, Reuters has reported on it, verified through ^[16] is however the only source in the article. In 10 of the 12 articles the same CBC ^[17], Euronews ^[18], World Radio ^[4], and The Guardian ^[19]. that does not mention the claimed events. Of the 12 articles starting with letter A, only Agbe airstrike seems reliable, and maybe Ari Giyergis massacre if the alternative translation proves correct. I will move down the list and mention it here. Share your take on these articles? Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 15:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Try to see the atrocities that have been going on, rather then rushing into denial. The banner on top of articles such as Adi Hageray massacre provides access to sources. That is encyclopaedia building. Rather than suggestion rejection, you would have found additional sources. ^[20] Rastakwere ( talk) 16:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

And, right today 15 November, the validity of the Tghat victims list has been verified by Associated Press. They cross-checked 30 randomly-chosen victims in the list. ^[21] I trust that, as of now, Dawit S Gondaria and other intervenants in this discussion will have a constructive contribution to the mentioned articles, by expanding them with information provided by Tghat and other sources. Rastakwere ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rastakwere I already did and it leads back to Tghat, such as on this https://ground.news/article/a-preliminary-report-on-an-adi-hageray-massacre and twitter leads to Tghat which i mentioned. As for The AP source only 30 are verified out of 3080 claimed victims through phone calls with relatives and friends, those 30 should be given some due credibility, not the Tghat source which is not independent of the subject, and relies largely on social media. FYI i am not denying atrocities didn't happen, it's just you created a lot of articles based on social media posts, sources that are potentially not indepedent of subject and you used sources that doesn't even mention claimed events/place. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 17:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

ehm, if a randomly chosen sample of 30 are verified, then the whole database is trustworthy. Rastakwere ( talk) 17:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

By that logic, the articles I randomly checked out of this list failed verification, and therefore the entire list of articles should be deleted. WMSR ( talk) 17:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A random (using a high-quality random number generator, not a human brain) sample of 30 will, in the simplest case, have a Poissonian standard error, which is about 5.5. Taking at least three standard errors (though the distribution is not Gaussian) would give a more conservative uncertainty of about 16.5. So finding all 30 of the sample to be notable would reasonably suggest that at least about half of the other 76 are notable; finding all 30 to be non-notable would suggest that at least about half of the other 76 are non-notable. Either way, the consensus seems to be tending towards handling this in batches. Boud ( talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Procedural suggestion: Based on the tendency of the discussion above, the question would seem to be how many articles could be included in each batch of a series of new AfDs, and with what frequency. The usual 7-day minimum deadline for achieving consensus per batch would apply, since nobody has justified overriding that. Given that we need to allow editors to look for sources to see if articles are likely to satisfy notability and the aims of this encyclopedia, I suggest something like a batch of at most 5-10 articles once per week. Anything more than 5-10 is just too much to give Wikipedians a chance to look seriously for sources and present arguments for the particular cases. More than 5-10 would also make it a lot more difficult for an uninvolved Wikipedian to close an AfD, since it will be hard to untangle different judgments on different articles. The full time scale would be a few months, but that's a lot more rapid than the one-year time scale on which the articles were created and received initial approval by new article patrollers. Boud ( talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - per all of the above arguments including NOTMEMORIAL, NOTDIRECTORY, and failure of the Atlas to be a reliable source. I came upon this AfD while removing the deprecated Republic World; I found the same exact sentence with the same exact RepWorld citation in over a dozen of these articles. Looking deeper, this is a case of WP:ADVOCACY and a nightmare to consider for maintenance. I have no doubt these killings took place, but they need to be reliably sourced, and the articles need to comply with Wikipedia notability policies which in this case would have all of these killings/massacres/battles/whateveryoucallthem mentioned in a single article. Platonk ( talk) 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  A "dozen of these" articles does not justify deleting all of the articles. There is no point going into details of specific articles until we switch to a reasonable procedure, but a hint is that if you read the history and talk pages of the Tigray War articles, you'll see that prior to the first few separations of massacres into individual towns, there were big editing conflicts due to different and apparently conflicting claims of attributing responsibility, with Amnesty International and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission being accused of being biased in favour of one side. The mainstream Western media - generally considered high-quality sources - often left out little bits of information, making it hard to summarise. The 106 mass proposal mixes a range of articles of different quality. The EHRC–OHCHR Tigray investigation has published its final report that is quite likely appropriate as another source for many of these massacres, despite being unable to visit much of Tigray. This will be useful once we have switched to a procedure that encourages people to edit those articles that they see as viable. The ACHPR Tigray investigation is a lot more independent of the Ethiopian federal and Tigrayan governments (it's based in Banjul, The Gambia, and set up by the ACHPR), and promises to produce its report by "the end of 2021". Boud ( talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Platonk Thank you for pointing out the Depracated Atlas source, i went there to check, but must have read past through it. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 23:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Dawit S Gondaria: You are welcome. Platonk ( talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Boud: You really should consider providing a link to the announcement of the report ( such as this one), rather than bypassing it to present a link to a PDF file that doesn't have any letterhead nor authors mentioned in it. Platonk ( talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete all changed from my position of procedural keep, most of the pages use Atlas as the source for a date of claimed event and for the numbers of victims. I have also read the Boud EHRC-Amnesty report which have different dates and number of victims than the deprecated unreliable Atlas source such as Adi Hageray massacre mentions civilians killed on 4 November 2020 by Tigrayan militia's, but the depracated source Atlas claims 200 civilians killed by Ethiopian and Eritrean defense forces between 12-18 November, which is unsupported by the EHCR-Amnesty report. Bora massacre does give the correct date, but different figures than the EHCR-Amnesty figurres which gives the figure of 70 victims not exclusively in Bora, but also 3 other places, Atlas sources gives a fiure of 187 victims. The Amnesty-EHCR report is a credible report and mentions civilians killed by Tigrayan militia's in Humera, which is different than the Humera massacres (2020) which relies on Atlas source. There is also no reason to name the Atlas in Chenna massacre since it gives no figures for this, yet it's added in the reaction section which i removed [ [3]], the figures relies on France 24 report . Happy to see all the articles that refer to Atlas deleted, even better if we can get articles that make zero reference to Atlas out this list such as 2021 Mekelle air strikes, Agbe airstrike and Chenna massacre. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 23:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

One point I think you're missing is, you are trying to delete ALL the pages regardless of if they use the atlas or not. For instance Togoga airstrike doesn't mention the atlas once, is more than notable for Wikipedia (being the deadliest airstrike of the war), and is adequately sourced.-- Garmin21 ( talk) 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Garmin21: The Togoga airstrike is already in the article Timeline of the Tigray War. Platonk ( talk) 04:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

So are most articles on specific events in war on wikipedia. They are often or all the time a part of the their respective timeline for a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garmin21 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Garmin21: Sure they're included in a timeline, but individual skirmishes rarely have breakout standalone articles. Wikipedia policy about notability is pretty clear. The guiding policy in this case is Wikipedia:Notability (events), as well as its senior article Wikipedia:Notability which contains the section Whether to create standalone pages. Platonk ( talk) 06:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - For those still stuck on the idea that these articles should not be deleted en masse, or who are suggesting the articles should be 'merged', I would like to point out that the basic information of each article, each event, (at least for each one I've checked) already resides in the article Timeline of the Tigray War. It is that article which should house the basic information for each event. Lists of names of dead people from a single event are a memorial and are not something Wikipedia was intended to cover. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. For an example of how casualties are handled for other wars, see Vietnam War casualties or World War II casualties or Casualties of the Iraq War. There are no "lists of dead" though there may be links to such lists (off-Wikipedia) under the 'external links' section. That is how it should be done with the Tigray War. And since each of the events has already been inserted into Timeline of the Tigray War, there is no downside to deleting all 106 articles in one AfD. Platonk ( talk) 04:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

References

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.