Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Bold Action

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. While I agree with Pixelface that the rationale presented in the nomination was a bit...lackadaisical, further discussion resulted in a clear consensus that the operation is non-notable, a fundamental issue that is not addressed by the comments in favor of keeping the article. --jonny-m t 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bold Action[edit]

Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent attribution of notability, nor any found during a Google News Archive search. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not sure if you're using Google News, but [1], first result: Iraqi, MND-B Soldiers conduct ‘Operation Bold Action’. Blackanthem.com. MrPrada (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable and as per above Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Idea that this is non-notable borders on ridiculous, luckily, deletion cannot occur based on notability per WP:NOT#policy. Should be verified like any other battle stub, but there are no grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is by far the most common grounds for deletion in AfD's. For a topic to be notable it needs to have been covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Assuming that Blackanthem is reliable that is one such source. Taemyr (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominator gives no convincing argument for deletion. The claim that this is a "minor action" appears to be the opinion of the nominator. The claim that it's "possibly POV" applies to every article on Wikipedia. And there's more than one source that has covered this topic. Wikipedia is not paper is a policy, unlike WP:N. --Pixelface (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tagged with {{intro-rewrite}}. It's in dire need of a rewrite if it is to be kept. B.Wind (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (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.