Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 20 May 2008

Operation Iraqi Home Protector

Operation Iraqi Home Protector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD, see talk page. There seems to be only one source for this military operation: a press release by one of the involved parties. First, the topic therefore fails WP:N due to lack of independent sources. Second, it does not seem possible to write a decent WP:NPOV article if no independent sources are present. This is generally true for encyclopedia articles, but all the more for military topics, where information coming from the involved parties is supposed to be censored. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. There are no actionable reasons (NPOV and N) given to delete, just guidelines for things that can be improved. Plus, individual battles are inherently notable, as battles are part of campaigns. Primary sources are completely acceptable until the history books are written. Our article on the Battle of Antietam is composed from the mostly from the official reports of Burnside, McClellan, Lee, and their subordinates--primary sources, the same thing that the history books are written from. MrPrada (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a misunderstanding. WP:N reflects community consensus, and failing this inclusion guideline is possibly the most frequently applied reason for deletion. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not exactly correct, as I stated, it is not an actionable reason, there has to be some other criterion (RS to verify the notability) to make it an actionable reason. However, this operation is notable, so that's not really an issue, is it. MrPrada (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A fairly minor and unimportant operation with no independant sources attesting to any importance. The article doesn't state that there was any fighting or that the outcomes were particularly significant. Minor battles and military operations are not considered inherently notable and similar articles have been deleted in the past. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nominator. Also, the tone of the article is not up to encyclopedic standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have also disagreed with those previous deletions. All of them were incorrect, and I may eventually either send them to DRV or wait for them to be recreated.
    • Having been to Iraq, "battles" don't occur in the traditional force on force sense. Anything deemed an "Operation", especially when conducted by an entire BCT (4,000-7,000 men) over a 2-3 day period is notable.
    • You have to remember these articles that are getting deleted describe activity under the counterinsurgency doctrine, not the force-on-force warfighter doctrine. Their scale is the same, but the motives (finding insurgents, weapons and intelligence as opposed to destroying an enemy army) are different.
    • Minor battles for the ACW and Veitnam are all notable (I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
    • If the 4th Infantry Division (source for this article) says its notable, then it is notable. If an individual company or battalion was asserting notability I would say otherwise, however in this case we have to trust the primary source until the history books are written.
  • We're going to have to come to some sort of policy especially for this, before most of the OIF articles are deleted. I would err on the side of inclusion as we do with every other war. MrPrada (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepI do not agree with this recommendation to delete this article. The fact is this is a named military operation in an recent ongoing conflict and it simply hasn't been going on long enough to hit the history books yet. It is also my opinion that the reference is from a good source so it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps this is a good example of the WP:IAR policy. Just because the references are scarce does not make it non-notible. I would state that any names military operations is notible and should qualify to have an article on wikipedia even if its only a stub.--Kumioko (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. The list at List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, where the other Iraqi-related AfDs have gone, fails to include many of the most notable Operations, e.g. Market Garden, Attleboro, Powder River, Ad Duluyah Sunrise, etc. When the history books are written, I'm sure they'll all be FAs by then. However, right now it is too soon to state that any particular operation is or is not notable. However, conducted at the BCT and above, which requites coordination of 4-5 battalions (5k to 7k soldiers) across a wide geographic area or major city, plus Iraqi troops, are inherently notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There is, as I understand it, only one source given here (for some reasone as an external link rather than a as a reference), the Press Release by the Iraqi National Force website about this operation. This is not an independent source, since the military operation in question was conducted by the Iraqi National Force and the press release is written to publicize it. The link is OK as a primary source for verifiability purposes but it does not go towards establishing notability per WP:N. I looked around on the web and could not find anything else that passes WP:V and WP:RS. A plain GoogleSearch gives just 9 hits . One of them gives a copy of the above mentione press release. There is also a couple of paragraphs in the news letter "The Advisor" of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq, attributed as "Multi-National Division – North Public Affairs". There is also one mention in what seems to be a blog. As far as I can tell, that's it. There is nothing, in GoogleNews and nothing anywhere else that I could find. Even if one takes the generous view and considers the "Advisor" article as an independent source, this is still miles away from satisfying the requirements of WP:N. I have read carefully the passionate keep arguments above. I certainly appreciate the feelings behind them, but from the point of view of Misplaced Pages policies and quidelines, these arguments just do not hold water. It is quite possible that in the future there will be books written about this operation and it will become quite famous. But we have to wait until that happens and if it does, there will be no problem with including an article about this operation on WP. See WP:CRYSTAL, "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball". It does not have to be a book, of course, if there are several journal/newpaper/magazinge/etc articles, covering the subject in substantial detail, that would be enough. For now, the subject clearly fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A minor, single operation does not need its own article. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Until this is referenced by third-party sources, it really isn't notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates