Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Market Sweep

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Market Sweep[edit]

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

This is not a notable event. 2 of the references are dead links. This was one day in the longest war the US has been involved. Not notable for people involved. Not notable for casualties or results Speditup (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've advanced what may, possibly, be a better deletion nomination below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep based on the nomination. (Also, length of the war has no difference on notability of specific battles or events within it.) WP:NOTNOTABLE is not a reason. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ per WP:SNOW, this is clearly notable, --Quek157 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - pending~~ Delete snow wouldn't be applicable at this point, Quek157. In any case, I thought this would be a fairly simple Keep !vote, too, but there is surprisingly little reliable coverage that appeared in a standard WP:BEFORE sweep. Lots of fairly well detailed blogs and listings in books on the war/occupation, but relatively little in terms of significant coverage from suitable sources. I would be surprised if there weren't sufficient sources, but going off what I have, it doesn't seem to satisfy any of WP:EVENTCRIT points, or the secondary points it gives if they don't apply.

The length of the war is of course irrelevant. However event notability is the primary nom argument. The keep !votes are currently just that - votes. Arguments (or just a good citation or two) need to be raised Nosebagbear (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments: whole book on it as well as webpage as well as another book. pretty on first page of google search. WP:BEFORE easily cover it. --Quek157 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now further SNOW, this is a SPA account nominating it. The only purpose is to nominate this AFD --Quek157 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: - first source has as its first summary line "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". Therefore, it can't act as a recursive source to itself! Second book mentions the operation twice - but that's it. It's the most minimal of MENTIONs, so it doesn't qualify either. The webpage is an American military newspaper and so is going to be a fairly imbalanced source - it wouldn't count as sufficiently neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, first source out, but clearly notable. An American military newspaper but this is under NATO operation so secondary coverage. Anyway,fishy SPA, reported at AIV--Quek157 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously notable. The nominator also appears to be a single-purpose account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom would appear to be a SPA, given a flawless submission as only action, so a checkuser is probably worthwhile. However - "obviously notable" still isn't a legitimate justification. Functional sources that actually satisfy source requirements for WP:GNG are needed! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, all the sources in the page and my 2 added sources will be enough already. That's WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why those given sources weren't appropriate. Regarding the sources in the article: 2 are dead links, and didn't come up when I sought them. Freeing Fallujah is a non-neutral blog, Global Security is also a non-neutral news source (more like an industry source), "Among Warriors in Iraq" is the writer's own actions. That said, that wouldn't necessarily rule the source out, but verifying any actual (more than) mention of the operation would be pleasant. The source quality, whether here or in article, is poor Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I agree nomination is defective - I will advance a nomination: - the subject does not meet GNG. Looking for non-PRIMARY sources in my BEFORE, I found two books referring to this - here where it is listed a very long list of such operations, and here where it has a brief mention. I did mange to find this - which was done by a different unit 1.5 years apart ("market sweep" being a rather well used name for such things). The operation itself, as described, is a rather routine sweep for contraband - there's little reason to think such a minor one day operation with but 60 arrests and some contraband found would be notable - and the PRIMARY and non-RS sources in the article (wapo is there - but from half a year prior to the operation - so not about it - and that would be PRIMARY too) - do not establish notability. The books I mentioned above - also don't. The article itself is, at present, a QUOTEFARM from various participants.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advancing the nomination. I would also like to point out that the needs citations for verification block has been there since march of 2009. Nearly ten years and no one has added any additional citations. --Speditup (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I am being accused of being a SPA. I'm new to editing wikipedia and trying to figure things out. Anyway, this is not a notable event. Anyone who has been in the military will tell you the same. There was more than one Operation Market Sweep. Even the entry itself claims, "nothing on such a small scale could net more than a handful of dealers and weapons" There was even an Operation Market Sweep in Baghdad which produced little according to Stripes. [1] --Speditup (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a closer inspection, do we really have any operational specific criterion in military history here? Like what kind of scope of operation or whatsoever, this is quite marginal in mention but there seems to be adequate, independent sources. The page is talking about Baghad anyway. I served as a OR4 for 2 years anyway, I can't directly tell whether it is notable here or not by having military experience. --Quek157 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you are a Single Purpose Account is because your only contribution is to AFD this. If you can contribute to other area before here, it will not be called a SPA. I don't know whether you are a sock or not - that 1 person using multiple account, that need someone called checkuser to confirm (just replying to edit summary of the above editor - why put there where here is better) --Quek157 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: There was apparently more than one Operation Market Sweep in different cities. The Operation Market Sweep article is confusing. Reference #4 has the following statements: a sudden burst of M-16 fire drops one as he tries to run over a US troop coming up on the side of his truck. I administered medical aid to the downed Iraqi, but he was too far gone. killed one of their townfolk. Yet the synopsis on the upper right says there were no casualties. The 5th reference even claims, No shots were fired. The references contradict each other. The Book you found is a 92 page self published work with no reviews. The second book with a list of operations has Operation Market Sweep happening in July of 2005. The person who originated the article appears to be a SPA. As I mentioned I am new member of wikipedia and am trying to figure it out but let's do the user check if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speditup (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC) --Speditup (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--Speditup (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, narrative of citation #5 states, We chased them down, but couldn’t catch any of them in the crowded market yet the synopsis in the upper right claims that 60 members of the Iraqi insurgency were captured. Citation #4 is a dead link but appears to be written by a student for a class. It could have been a creative writing class.--Speditup (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo opinion after all the above. not snow , i will say it is WP:ROTM coverage and unclear what the operation is. the sources are main primary ones, without secondary sources that cover in depth. Confusing accounts. Likely to be several market sweeps or rather it's market sweeping but not as an operation kind. is an operation by troops to sweep markets not Operation Market Garden. I am convinced by above nominator points. --Quek157 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per revised nom by Icewhiz. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (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.