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.
Delete Fails
WP:GNG and the sole reference is no longer a working link. Doing a quick search only found 2 articles making brief mentions of Operation Phantom Linebacker. Even if it had proper references I’m not sure if this is notable enough for an article but am open to be swayed in discussion.
2 kewl fer skool (
talk)
23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That takes care of verifiability as far as the existence of the topic is concerned, but…
One AP brief (plus a local news article directly based on it) and a single brief article in a major newspaper just don’t pass GNG. The topic is not notable enough, unless there is a large body of analysis on its success/failure that has yet to be declassified. Anyone want to make a FOIA request? ;)
RadioactiveBoulevardier (
talk)
08:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RadioactiveBoulevardier: It looks like
WP:THREE to me, but I will be totally honest with you: I'm probably not going to improve the page myself, and I don't have a strong opinion. Do you really think it is a dud? If so, I suppose I am fine with deleting it. jp×g15:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Might be notable when related documents were declassified, but for now not much can be written about the subject.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: agreed that it's not a great article at the moment, but topic seems to pass
WP:GNG; a start-class article could at least in theory be written from the AP and LA Times articles, and there's a passing mention
here and
here. Another article
here discusses the Saudi response to the operation. Mindful of
WP:DINC that the article's quality shouldn't have a bearing on whether it's deleted.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
13:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure: the core of
WP:GNG is a subject is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's a judgement on the quality of the sources that exist, not a judgement on the article as it is currently written.
The meaning of significant coverage is important: the bar to clear here is Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As long as we have "more than a trivial mention" of the operation, then, the source counts towards GNG, as long as the source itself is reliable. Since military operations don't themselves run press operations, we can discount "independent" in this context, though I can't see that doing so changes anything here.
This article indirectly from the AP: again, unimpeachable source, SIGCOV, including the operation itself, its context, the motives for it and the international reaction.
this article from Dawn, a major Pakistani newspaper of record: not a huge article, but significant coverage within the meaning of
WP:SIGCOV above. Useful for the international (Saudi) reaction to the operation.
A commonly-used informal standard is
WP:THREE: if the three best sources available on the topic stand up, it should stay; otherwise, it shouldn't. To me, this is a pretty clear pass on those grounds: it also meets the multiple requirement of
WP:GNG; strictly speaking, THREE is a higher standard than GNG.
Further sources don't necessarily need to have
WP:SIGCOV, once GNG is met, but have useful information:
this book talks about the operation in light of its long-term aftermath, and how it fitted into an evolving US strategy for policing the border (specifically, that they decided to us US border control officers rather than Iraqi soldiers)
This book is by the same author as the first; I can't read it in full and it seems to cover similar material (specifically, linking the operation to the evolution of border control within the US), but it helps to show us that this topic has been covered in reliable, mainstream, published sources.
I think you're completely right (though if you've changed your initial assessment, you should strike it to help the closing administrator establish consensus). I'm involved in another attempted AfD rescue at the moment, but , assuming this one does pass, I might have a go at putting something together from those sources.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
06:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Admittedly an edge case as discussed above, but in those cases I'd prefer to err on the side of inclusion. There have now been enough RS unearthed to add proper citations to the article, even if it probably won't ever make it far beyond start class. --
Tserton (
talk)
18:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough.
To be honest, my views on notability may be impacted by
WP:BIAS. It would be extremely helpful if someone with the know-how to find archived Arabic-language news and RS (which had far less of an internet presence in 2004) could search around a bit.
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.
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.
Delete Fails
WP:GNG and the sole reference is no longer a working link. Doing a quick search only found 2 articles making brief mentions of Operation Phantom Linebacker. Even if it had proper references I’m not sure if this is notable enough for an article but am open to be swayed in discussion.
2 kewl fer skool (
talk)
23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That takes care of verifiability as far as the existence of the topic is concerned, but…
One AP brief (plus a local news article directly based on it) and a single brief article in a major newspaper just don’t pass GNG. The topic is not notable enough, unless there is a large body of analysis on its success/failure that has yet to be declassified. Anyone want to make a FOIA request? ;)
RadioactiveBoulevardier (
talk)
08:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RadioactiveBoulevardier: It looks like
WP:THREE to me, but I will be totally honest with you: I'm probably not going to improve the page myself, and I don't have a strong opinion. Do you really think it is a dud? If so, I suppose I am fine with deleting it. jp×g15:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Might be notable when related documents were declassified, but for now not much can be written about the subject.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: agreed that it's not a great article at the moment, but topic seems to pass
WP:GNG; a start-class article could at least in theory be written from the AP and LA Times articles, and there's a passing mention
here and
here. Another article
here discusses the Saudi response to the operation. Mindful of
WP:DINC that the article's quality shouldn't have a bearing on whether it's deleted.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
13:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure: the core of
WP:GNG is a subject is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's a judgement on the quality of the sources that exist, not a judgement on the article as it is currently written.
The meaning of significant coverage is important: the bar to clear here is Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As long as we have "more than a trivial mention" of the operation, then, the source counts towards GNG, as long as the source itself is reliable. Since military operations don't themselves run press operations, we can discount "independent" in this context, though I can't see that doing so changes anything here.
This article indirectly from the AP: again, unimpeachable source, SIGCOV, including the operation itself, its context, the motives for it and the international reaction.
this article from Dawn, a major Pakistani newspaper of record: not a huge article, but significant coverage within the meaning of
WP:SIGCOV above. Useful for the international (Saudi) reaction to the operation.
A commonly-used informal standard is
WP:THREE: if the three best sources available on the topic stand up, it should stay; otherwise, it shouldn't. To me, this is a pretty clear pass on those grounds: it also meets the multiple requirement of
WP:GNG; strictly speaking, THREE is a higher standard than GNG.
Further sources don't necessarily need to have
WP:SIGCOV, once GNG is met, but have useful information:
this book talks about the operation in light of its long-term aftermath, and how it fitted into an evolving US strategy for policing the border (specifically, that they decided to us US border control officers rather than Iraqi soldiers)
This book is by the same author as the first; I can't read it in full and it seems to cover similar material (specifically, linking the operation to the evolution of border control within the US), but it helps to show us that this topic has been covered in reliable, mainstream, published sources.
I think you're completely right (though if you've changed your initial assessment, you should strike it to help the closing administrator establish consensus). I'm involved in another attempted AfD rescue at the moment, but , assuming this one does pass, I might have a go at putting something together from those sources.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk)
06:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Admittedly an edge case as discussed above, but in those cases I'd prefer to err on the side of inclusion. There have now been enough RS unearthed to add proper citations to the article, even if it probably won't ever make it far beyond start class. --
Tserton (
talk)
18:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough.
To be honest, my views on notability may be impacted by
WP:BIAS. It would be extremely helpful if someone with the know-how to find archived Arabic-language news and RS (which had far less of an internet presence in 2004) could search around a bit.
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.