Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaambi Operations

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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 18:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaambi Operations[edit]

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

This article seems to be written with the point of view that might be unbalanced. There are no references in on the for the information in this article can be confirmed. Since this is an article based about middle east conflicts, I don't feel qualified to approve its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Bfpage |leave a message 23:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for now. Apparently this was created in its present form by an SPA with only two global edits, one of which is this article and the other of which is registering it at WikiData. How is that possible? I thought you needed at least 10 edits to be autoapproved. Anyway, this article is a translation of the French Wiki article fr:Bataille de Chaambi, which has 69 footnotes. So that's where the sources are. The editor should have said that in his edit summary, but we can do that now – tag it for references, put the {{Translated page}} template on the Talk page, and bring it to the attention of one of the groups that does Middle East conflicts. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per Margin1522's reasoning. Although someone should probably go in and clean it up.DiscantX (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2014 (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.