Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Show Me How (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. ST47Talk 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Show Me How (2nd nomination)[edit]

Operation Show Me How (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

This article was restored after a deletion review that introduced new information not available at the first AfD. The actual value of the new information was contested though, so relisting was called for. Please consider the prior discussions and evidence before commenting in this AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, after reviewing the sources presented in DRV. These simply verify that an operation existed, which I don't believe was ever in doubt. There is still no evidence of notability, other than that it has an interesting backstory (how the smuggling was done). Media coverage is still trivial, even with the CIO magazine mention, and there it was brought up as an example by an Interpol person, not the topic of the interview. --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Operation Show Me How appeared on DYK on December 15, 2006. If this article is deleted, it would be the only DYK article that has been red linked out of approximately 5,700 DYK articles. Also, in discussing Wikipedia:Notability, please focus the discussion on Wikipedia:Notability requirements rather than notoriety. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented at the time, this was a terrible choice for a DYK article - it was unreferenced, and did not verify encyclopedic notability. Referencing has now improved slightly, but the claims to encyclopedic notability still have not been verified, and sources are used in a misleading way Bwithh 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A multinational Interpol bust of a 50 country drug smuggling ring may not be as notable as say Backyard wrestling or

Pokémon, but to be fair, you are not going to find a lot of media coverage online if it happened in 1998. (Al Gore hadn't invented the Internets yet.) --Infrangible 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Libraries usually have no end of old newspapers and magazines. If someone really wants to write an article, they'll use books, newspapers, and the like. "Too difficult" is not really an excuse for not doing research and finding sources. It's up to the people who want this included to do the research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I ran a full Factiva news and magazine database search in the first afd. The database has 10,000+ sources going back to the 1980s. Nothing came up. Bwithh 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Please note that Interpol operations are by definition "multinational" and having a worldwide reach. Interpol has 186 member countries - it routinely runs operations which will touch on all member countries at least at the level of information gathering and inquiry communication. There is nothing unusual about police agencies from 50 countries being asked to search their databases for Interpol. It's one of the main reasons for having Interpol in the first place. Bwithh 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issues raised by the original AfD remain germane; I agree with Dhartung. I don't think this should have been relisted. Eusebeus 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus, Dhartung, WP:V issues identified already. Appearing on DYK appears less that relevant; DYK features things because they are interesting, but where does WP:INTERESTING link? The sources cited at DRV did not rise above the trivial (indeed, some of them didn't reach the dizzy heights of triviality). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Infrangible. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Infrangible, plus theres obviously enough people want this for it to survive relisting...else it wouldnt be here again. Jcuk 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review doesn't work like that. Bwithh 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see what possible benefit there is in deleting an article that is this highly referenced. Adheres to all policies and guidelines thus keep. --JJay 20:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because its actually poorly referenced and does not prove its claims of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angusmclellan /Blaxthos 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay and Infrangible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the concerns I raised in the original afd and in the original. We should care about the quality of references and if they verify the claims of the article. Simply adding reference footnotes with links does not prove that an article is well-referenced.
  • Here are the issues with the unproven claims and implications of the article:
  • 1) The original research implication that the operation was named after a children's colouring book. The CIO magazine article mentions the title of a series used for drug smuggling but does not specify what kind of book. Making an unreliable original source claim that a children's book series is connected with drug smuggling is irresponsible - it may cause legal problems with the children's book series authors and publisher, especially as the book series implicated is still active[1].
    • So fix it. That may have been presumptous by the author of the article to perhaps assume that it was the children's book of the same name, but that can be easily edited. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying that there's a solid argument to be made that this book series was used for drug smuggling? Not an serious issue to suggest such a thing? I'll fix it by taking the statement out. Bwithh 22:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was there a book called "show Me How" that was used for drug smuggling? Appears so. What was presumptuous? Perhaps' assuming that it was the children's book of the same name and not something else. To take it out entirely would be improper, to take out the children's book part, possibly not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) This misleading suggestion: "Through Operation Show Me How, an important international gang of drug smugglers were disrupted as a result of twenty four hours of coordinated database effort".Actually, the CIO magazine article specifically uses the operation as an example of "the international multicountry operations that may last for eons". The operation lasted at least two years. Not 24 hours. What the article says is that within 24 hours of an inquiry being sent out internationally, they received responses from 50 countries - how long does it take for a professional department to respond to an email, fax or phone call which asks the department to look up something in their own computer database? This is not particularly noteworthy. Note that none of the official reports mentioning this operation mention the "24 hour" aspect at all. Magazine interview sources should also be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the interviewee appears to be talking off the top of his head (I doubt that arrests were literally made on "all continents" for instance plus he can't remember the month this eventful supposedly-smashing-drug-gangs-in-a-supposedly-landmark-24-hours operation started but we are to take his "50 countries" number quote as gospel?)
    • Okay...and? With the interview thing specifically, we're sourcing to him, right? So that's all that matters - what he said. The article can merely reflect "Interviewed party claimed 50 countries on all continents." --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main point is that the article's claim that the operation was special for achieving something in 24 hours is misleading. The database inquiry is not unusual. As for the second part of the statement, I was pointing out that the magazine interview is not a solid source. As I said above, we should care about the quality of our sources and what they actually say. In addition, as I also note higher up in this discussion, Interpol is an international police organization with 180+ member countries and one of its main routine purposes is to coordinate information sharing and inquiries between all its members. Making an inquiry to 50 countries is not special for Interpol, its their normal business. Bwithh 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with you regarding the interview, and I don't think anyone's claiming that the inquiry to 50 countries is anything special. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) The misleading suggestion that the operation was decisive in showing the possibility of drugs sent through mail was an issue for all countries. This claim is based on the 1999 Interpol report which mentions Show Me How and at least one other operation ("Hostel/Portrait") in connection with Express Mail smuggling as well as vague additional "Interpol Information". Unless we apply an original research expansive interpretation of the brief one-line mention of Show Me How, there is no statement which suggests that Show Me How was decisive in showing that this was a problem. It is also not clear even if it did, why this would be encyclopedically notable.
    • So is the problem with the word "decisive," or something else? The operation was apparently worth noting, so it was something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By your standard then, any operation or project mentioned in a paragraph or even a single line by a government or police or international agency report is worth an encyclopedia article. Bwithh
  • 4) No other indication of why this operation was especially important compared to other Interpol drug operations. In the 36 page 1998 Interpol annual report, this operation gets a ~30 word mention. (9 countries, not 50, are mentioned as significant operation areas) in the middle of a list of 10 drugs operations. There is no indication why this is a stand out operation. In the 40 page 1999 Interpol annual report, the operation is given a single line mention, which is shared with another operation. In the 196 page Transnational Crime report, the operation is given a 25 to 30 word mention in a list with 2 other operations. Furthermore, a Factiva news database search showed no news coverage hits for "Operation Show Me How"
    • WP:POKEMON in reverse. Perhaps we should make articles on the others, too? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, by this standard, any operation mentioned in a paragraph or even a single line by a government or police or international agency report is worth an encyclopedia article. Bwithh
  • 5) The Czech and the "World News Connection" articles (which are actually the same - the World News Connection is merely an international news collection database translation or summary of the Czech article) refer to a French NGO report which does not mention Operation Show Me How at all. See my comments at deletion review about this[2]. --Bwithh 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, again, fix it. If the reference is tagged incorrectly (and just because the source doesn't mention the operation doesn't mean it's not a valid source in the article for any number of statements), then fix it. These are issues that should be taken up at the article, not as reasons to delete - you have yet to indicate what the problems with inclusion are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have in detail. Regarding this specific source, even if accepted, does not show why this Operation is encyclopedically notable Bwithh'~
        • Well, we disagree on that much. The Wiki's basic standards appear to disagree with you, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced and written. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Operation may conceivably be N, but that almost all of the information is taken from a first-person CNN show republished as a magazine article does not give my any confidence that there is much truth here. Fails V. DGG 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The topic is notable, but the article is bad' is an argument for fixing the article, not deletion. -Toptomcat 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Infrangible. -Toptomcat 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most referenced articles per amount of text I've come across in a while. Notability is established on this encyclopedic topic.--Oakshade 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this event actually happened, then it is certainly notable enough to warrent its own article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 20:46, 22 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Show_Me_How_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138187102"