Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. ^demon[omg plz] 13:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Wilno[edit]


Operation Wilno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Update: Recently created redirects Operacja wileńska, Operacja wilenska, Wilno offensive were listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 25 -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2006 was created article Operation Wilno (for 1919 developments), however soon contributors started to question that article’s name is pure original research and finds no support among English language academic works. And indeed till present day we find no matches even in google books [1], nor in scholar [2] . After discussion article was moved from original research title to Vilna offensive. However soon after move default redirect was recreated as disambiguation page, was included and article dealing with 1944 events, which holds name Operation Ostra Brama. So both articles have distant titles from invented title ‘’Operation Wilno’’. And recent notice directly points that old problems once again became topical. So, there are no reasons why this disambiguation page under invented and POV title should stay. M.K. 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my comments, M.K. 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Translation of a term popular in Polish historiography (operacja wileńska, which also redirects to this disambig); it stands to reason some people are going to look for it - and it applies to both of the operations in the disambig. That some editors dislike to see the Polish term 'Wilno' is no reason to delete a perfectly harmless disambig.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARMLESS is rather useless argument. M0RD00R 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageous claim. Just see [3] or printed sources like Żebryk Roman Korab, Operacja Wileńska. Epilog ([4]) for 1944 event. For 1919, try [5] or see for example this term used in this context in WIEM Encyklopedia entry here, this academic article or the title of a chapter in this academic book mentioned [6] (Operacja wileńska w kwietniu 1919 roku: Józefa Piłsudskiego błyskotliwy sukces wojskowy i niepowodzenie polityczne).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely harmless disambig which in no way violates any Wikipedia policy. - Darwinek 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A perfect example of what disambiguation pages are for, pointing to the correct term.--victor falk 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above.--Molobo 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the term is correct, means in English "Operation Vilnius", but Lithuanian "Vilnius" is not in common use. It was Polish military operation, since the Polish term "Wilno" (just like Munich in English would be instead of German Muenchen) instead of "Vilnius". Just like the name of operation "Desert Storm" - English words - was American military operation and we don't use Arabic names. greg park avenue 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very best one could say is that it might be a convenient page tool for a member of wikipedia's anglo-phone Polish community in a very confused or senile moment, otherwise, per the very well put arguments of MK and Dr. Dan, has no place in an encyclopedia . Clear delete. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is a weird entry and should not be there. The purpose of DAB pages is to navigate and take readers to an article they are looking for at the search string. Who would ever enter such combination? Or is this article supposed to DAB between all battles involving Vilnius? In this case, why not add the 1944 Baltic Offensive? I guess because it is never called "Operation Wilno" in any literature. Well, but the events listed there now are not called such either. That pl-wiki has an entry under pl:operacja wileńska does not warrant an corresponding entry at en-wiki. The term's being used in Polish does not make it a notable English term. --Irpen 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reason already stated by others. --Jadger 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:OR and WP:NEO. The term almost does not exist anywhere but here in Wiki. No multiple reliable sources referencing term "Operation Wilno" were provided. So it fails WP:N by mile.

M0RD00R 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per M.K, Dr. Dan and M0RD00R.--Lokyz 10:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above, in contrast to the many generic lithuanian terms all over Wikipedia. Ksenon 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment I feel obligation to state more clearer current problem:
    a) Apart that name Operation Wilno finds no support in English academic works, it is not accurate translation as well. If as contributor above notes that current name is translation of Polish term operacja wileńska, then English translation should be Vilnian Operation. So it hardly believable that Polish readers will look for the article under Operation Wilno. Notability issue?
    b) even so if the current OR title would be move to proper one, there was no military activities which had contemporary codename (even in Polish) Operation Wilno or above formulation. So it is not the same as Operation Barbarossa.
    c) redirect of Operacja wileńska was created after the proposed deletion nomination.
    d) unrelated Google search hardly proves anything [7] with 1900 (!) maybe needs to be included too?.
    e) Disambiguation page, for this moment, is used for unrelated articles' names. M.K. 13:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - "Operacja Wilno" yields over 8000 hits on Google, mostly in Polish like Wilno, some in English like Wilno Uprising. You're missing the point, M.K., this military enterprise by Polish Home Army was only second in importance to Warsaw Uprising, and I am not talking about the Ghetto Uprising with 800 fighting soldiers only, but tens of thousands. And the title "Operation Wilno" is more suited for English reader than "Operacja wilenska". I even think about creating new category: "Home Army Operations" in relation to Polish Home Army which counted about 2 million souls, more than all US Army during WWII. What do you think, pal? greg park avenue 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Operacja Wilno" yields just 9 not 8000 ghits [8] non of which is related to military operations. So WP:OR case is obvious. M0RD00R 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to America Online/Netscape [9] greg park avenue 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
0 (zero) ghits there [10] M0RD00R 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In Polish language you cannot use quotation marks to get the results of search right. Each noun has eight suffixes, i.e.: Operacja, Operację, Opercją, Operacji, etc. The best proof to show how miserable your search was is: you ain't got even one hit on Wikipedia, and there are many as I showed above - see my ref. no 9 and compare it with your ref. no 8. greg park avenue 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proofs quite the opposite - the term Operacja Wilno and its English translation Operation Wilno does not exists anywhere but here in Wiki because it is pure OR. M0RD00R 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Check out the first 100 entries from 8000. 70% deals with Operation Wilno exclusively; 39 out of the first 40 entries either. So where is the claimed OR of yours? Rather POV, but you cannot change the facts this way, not by using poor argumentation as below regarding "zombie gnomes for Mars". It's good for fifth graders; in Wikipedia you don't impress nobody by this reasoning. The facts about the issue in question already on Internet, many from notable sources, are enough to write a thousand page documentary book plus ten novels, five of which would qualify for Hollywood blockbusters. greg park avenue 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first word neatly sums up the ones following ("zombie gnomes for Mars", "Hollywood blockbusters"). I've seen many search engine hit claims, but these "8000" are as bold and incompetent as possible. Try [11] to make sure that at least both words are included (if not together, which never happens), and that the disputed 1919 time frame is covered, not 1944 (consensus as "Ostra Bama"). -- Matthead discuß!     O       10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must commend you on your search, it cross-referenced the topics and narrowed significantly the inquired by you data down to 119 entries (there is of course lots of more without disclosing dates or so), still much more than the other guys are claiming, some of them came out with nothing. That's why we should keep this disambiguation page just for people like them, who don't know how and what to look for. Most military operation refer to the place where the event occured, that's why I vote for the term "Wilno" in the title. "Ostra Brama" is a Polish word reffering to some church in Vilnius and only Polish language speaking folks, and those who read Pan Tadeusz by Adam Mickiewicz, will associate this term with Wilno. Small chance for folks who are not acquaint in Polish literature or military code names. Both events (1919 and 1944) relate to the same place - Wilno, so it should have this disambig. page just like uprisings in Warsaw and Poznan have. What's wrong with Wilno then? And whats wrong with major motion pictures? greg park avenue 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was numerical times said why exact search is necessary. For further Internet literacy understanding The Internet For Dummies and Google Search & Rescue For Dummies should be consulted. M.K. 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Term "Operation Wilno" is OR. There is not even one Polish or English source using this term. And therefore having disambiguation page for non-existent term is pure non-sense. Simple as that. M0RD00R 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If main nominative case (mianownik) version (Operacja Wilno) yields just 9 hits (NONE of them related to any military operation) all other versions are expected to yield even less results. This is easy to prove, just use exact search for every case. Otherwise search results are as accurate as search for Polish operation evil flesh eating zombie gnomes from Mars which yields whopping 27,000 ghits BTW [12]. M0RD00R 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I use an exact search? Any search will do if it only produces results. Who cares how I found references anyway as long as they are reliable. Besides, I find your comments disruptive and leading. Won't reply to other ones if posted by you. greg park avenue 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should use exact search because simple search displays pages having words Wilno and operation in it, but not term "Wilno operation" which is not referenced even by single source (Polish or English). M0RD00R 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the term Operation Wilno is notable or accepted at all, there should be some sources on it. There are apparently none. As an alternative, if "Operacja wileńska" is indeed popular in Polish historiography, then this page can redirect to Operacja wileńska and the disambiguation page be put up there. Sciurinæ 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. //Halibutt 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:CUZILIKESIT is not a valid reason to keep either. Dr. Dan 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Piotrus and Halibutt. Visor 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - may I suggest that the editors who argue for deletion first ensure there are no links to this page? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, no proper article links here anymore, I've cleaned it up. Somebody else should have sorted this out long time ago. -- Matthead discuß!     O       11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is harmless and appropriate disambig.Biophys 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult WP:HARMLESS. M0RD00R 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Biophys. Tymek 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As already was explained that you should provide arguments - does not hurt approch is not valid: Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.
    As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.) per already provided WP:HARMLESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.K (talk • contribs) 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is this fixation with telling us that this is a "harmless" disambiguation, as if anyone was arguing that it was a "harmful" one? The issue and argument is that it's a "creation" without any scholarly basis. And now there's an edit war over this nonsense, with a call to arms? Dr. Dan 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neither Google Books [13] nor Google Scholar [14] know "Operation Wilno". This is a disamb, between 1919 Vilna offensive and 1944 Operation Ostra Brama (pl:Operacja Ostra Brama) events, to which several pages had linked, mainly in 1919 context despite the claim that the majority refers to the 1944 context. I've thus replaced the links in articles and Template:Campaignbox Polish-Soviet War with Vilna offensive. Also, as not even Polish Wikipedia knows Operacja wileńska [15] or Operacja wilenska [16] or Operation Wilno [17], I find it hard to understand why English Wikipedia should keep such redirects or disambs - or why these redirects had been recently created [18] [19] by the very same person that had created [20] Vilna offensive as Operation Wilno. And this 1919 event seems not to be covered in Polish Wikipedia at all. There is no evident reason at all why English Wikipedia should keep Polish redirects and disamb not even the pl-Wiki considers useful. -- Matthead discuß!     O       10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: pl:Operacja wileńska was created [21] by pl:Wikipedysta:Piotrus on 03:07, 25 Oct 2007. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MK's and Matthead's findings that "Operation Wilno" is not found in Gbooks or Gscholar. Even on Google itself, it only appears in a forum site, in bitwawarszawska.pl, and Wikipedia mirrors.[22] Novickas 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong, and it's proof that you don't know how to look for information on Google, and another reason to keep this disambiguation page instead of witholding information about this particular and very important event from Wikipedia. The current title Operation Ostra Brama is just the code name of the military operation and very few lucky ones will find it. It's like renaming the article Warsaw Uprising to its code name, I even don't remember and would have lots of trouble to call it in. greg park avenue 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic, rather the lack thereof, is stunning. "Operation Wilno" is what, if not "just the code name of the military operation and very few lucky ones will find it"? It's just a generic Pidgin English description, combining non-Polish "Operation" and "Polish city name". From the few Google hits, I can see mainly some distorted or outdated Wiki mirrors, "another reason" not to feed Google and others with flawed Wikipedia entries. Only Axis History: Memories From The Polish Soviet War and bitwawarszawska.pl: Operation Wilno: Polish offensive to Wilno (April 1919) with bitwawarszawska.pl: Polish forces continued a steady eastern advance. They took Lida on April 17 and Nowogródek on April 18, and recaptured Vilnius on April 19 being proper sites/pages, providing content from a slight Polish POV. That is okay, but not the base for decisions on English Wikipedia. As for the Polish Home Army act in 1944, you just missed the recent consensus to move it from Wilno Uprising to Operation Ostra Brama. -- Matthead discuß!     O       17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably for the first time I agree with Matthead. Renata 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does Britannica classify "Wilno/Vilnius Uprising 1944", Renata? I just saw on your user page that it's your favorite encyclopedia and you've got an access to it. Would you mind to share this with us? Thanks! greg park avenue 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Britannica use term "Operation Wilno"?No it doesn't. End of story. M0RD00R 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica provides free abstracts on Vilnius dispute and Vilnius itself. Wilno redirects to both Vilnius articles. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're so kind to place these links to Britannica regarding Vilnius. It's really an abstract and I even found major error in it (point for Renata). They state that the 1919 war was between Poland and Lithuania. It appears to me that Britons got that one from Horatio Hornblower stories or similar sources, lol. The conflict was of course between Poland and the Red Army, which resulted in independence from bolshevism for Vilnius in the next 20 years to come. To be on a save side i cite the World Book Encyclopedia in print, 1968 edition: Vilnius (also redirected from Polish name Wilno) - "It was the old capital of Lithuania, and became the capital again when the country declared its independence from Russia after World War I. It was the capital of independent Lithuania from 1818 to 1940. However, from 1920 to 1939, while Vilnius was occupied by Poland, a provisional capital was set up at Kaunas." Some younger readers maybe confused by this text, so it's worth to point out that this entry was made when Lithuania was the republic of Soviet Union, not a sovereign state. Vilnius was then just like West Berlin. Independent under occupation by allies, while East Berlin (like Kaunas) was the provisional capital - allegedly free but not really free, definetely not independent. Thanks anyway. greg park avenue 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's disambiguation page, and is it is apparently sometimes used, so it might be useful for some people. I didn't know that Vilnius has so many names, I actually never knew it is called "Vilna" or similar in several languages. Suva Чего? 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was said numerical times it is OR and not used in academic literature. Could you please provide any real arguments? However it is very good that such minor development as this attracted so many fellow Baltic neighbors. M.K. 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Suva. Wikipedia is suppose to be user friendly, and it would be a useful search term given the hundreds of thousands of young Polish workers living in the UK these days, who would likely use english Wikipedia. Martintg 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is user friendly: Poles in the UK are permitted to access pl.wikipedia.org. If they choose to use en.wikipedia.org, I doubt that finding hundreds of thousands of Polish words there is what they looked for. -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your reasoning. Above you mention Britannica redirects Wilno to Vilnius, yet you think Wikipedia shouldn't and want to delete this disamb page. Martintg 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't tell the difference between the usefulness of the Polish name Wilno redirecting [23] to the proper name Vilnius, and the uselessness of the made-up Operation Wilno that comprises the Polish name and promotes Polish POV?-- Matthead discuß!     O       14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can tell, and no one pointed that one out yet including Britannica abstract - thru centuries Lithuania was part od Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Vilnius was called Wilno more times than not. #1 Polish poets Adam Mickiewicz and Juliusz Słowacki came from Wilno or its suburbs. Another poet Czesław Miłosz, a Lithuanian, wrote only in Polish. It didn't hinder him to win the Nobel Prize in literature. There are of course other names of this 900 years old city in different languages like Vilnyuse in Russian, but they are meaningless. So I'm asking again - what's wrong with Wilno, and where you've got this POV from? It's called history. greg park avenue 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had pointed out that this Afd is about the "made-up Operation Wilno that ... promotes Polish POV" and violates WP:NOR, and not about "Wilno or its suburbs". Stop filibustering. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there an English name of Vilnius, I would settle for that in English Wikipedia. Since there is none, your WP:NOR does not apply here. Polish military operation deserve Polish name, not Lithuanian one, just to make Wikipedia more transparent. This name exists since even before Teutonic Knightys arrival and was in common use until recently, just like Lwów or Poznań, not Lviv or Posen. Russians ruled Wilno several decades, while Germans several years only. Polish were there since the beginning. It's history if you like it or not, something neither you nor me can change now. greg park avenue 16:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a WP:OR at the large - could you please be more specific - in waht context Wilno was mentioned "before" "Teutonic Knightys" arrival? Until the middle of 19th century this teritory was mainly Lithuanian speaking and every single map until 19th century portrays Vilna not Wilno (i.e. latin form of the city name). I know that there were some Poles living in Vilnius (one short street) in 14th century (note that it is quite long ago after German Order was invited by Duke of Masovia).
And I do love this one "Was there an English name of Vilnius, I would settle for that in English Wikipedia. Since there is none" - well, care to elaborate waht do you men with this verbal equilibristics? Since I can see [24] 33 millions of pages (its English sites only). As for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth you tend to forget Lithuanian in that aspect, and also tend to forget Grand Duchy of Lithuania, that existed for centuries and even in Commonwealth regained high level of authonomy.--Lokyz 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, would you elaborate what state was it in 1919? Or what state was it in 1944?--Lokyz 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the very point I am making below. For some reason it seems to be ignored by other editors... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Operation Wilno codename of operation? NO, it is not. Is Sonderaktion Krakau codename of operation? Yes, it is. See difference? oh by the way Sonderaktion Krakau yields a number of academic publications including Polish. This thy we do not call Operation Ostra Brama as Operation Aušros Vartai or Operation Gates of Dawn. By such two comments, presented above by contributors who says that this ORish disamb. should stay, became evident one more thing that Operation Wilno even misleads readers. Yet another argument why this should be deleted. M.K. 09:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not dictionary. M.K. 12:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The disambig is now subject to deliberate removal of references and institution of errors (with substitution of term unused in Polish historiography - operacja Wilno - instead of term used - operacja Wileńska). Presenting arguments at AfD is one thing. Damaging the main article to make it more likely to be deleted is quite another. Please stop such disruptive actions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I strongly suggest next time, then providing diffs provide them in proper manner; there is no reason to skip intermediate versions [25]. M.K. 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's analyze so called sources ::[26] there is nothing that would reference in it term "Operation Wilno"
[27] references only operacja wilenska, which is not under question. Operacja wilenska does not translate as Operation Wilno. Or if you insist that it does translate that way you must provide WP:RS for that. If you want to prove that there is Polish equivalent to Operation Wilno you must provide source for Operacja Wilno.
[28] Same as above.
You were asked specifically to provide sources for Operation Wilno not Operacja wilenska, because article in question is named Operation Wilno not operacja wilenska. Replacing fact tags with references that do not reference the fact in question is disruptive indeed. M0RD00R 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Operacja translated as Operation. Wileńska in this context translates as Wilno. It's a very simple translation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said you must provide WP:RS for that. If it is that simple translation it wouldn't be a problem for you to provide sources. But it is not possible because operacja wilenska does not translate that way. Show me one term "XXX wilenski" in Polish that would translate as "XXX Wilno" in English. M0RD00R 14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is for the very fact that it is a simple, obvious translation (ask any Polish-English speaker) that there are no sources for it; dictionaries, after all, offer no translations of constructs. But in any case, here's the ref for operation translating as operacja ([29]), as for Wilno, here's a Britannica article ([30]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to provide translation for operacja, I'm not asking to provide translation for Wilno. I'm asking to provide translation for "OPERACJA WILNO". And you can't do it as I see. You know why? Because it does not translate that way. XXX wilenski does not translate as XXX Wilno in English. Just quick tour though google [31].
Magazyn Wilenski does not translate as Magazine Wilno.
Kurier Wilenski does not translate as Courier Wilno.
Uniwersytet Wileński does translate as University Wilno.
And so on. M0RD00R 14:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read a little about military operation naming conventions, and consider why Operacja Ostra Brama is Operation Ostra Brama ([32]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway Wikipedia is not run by "you say, I say" rule. If you want Operation Wilno to be kept. You must provide MULTIPLE WP:RS for that exact name. Everything else is your opinion, or in Wiki language WP:OR. M0RD00R 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Than I assume you would support deletions of Kielce pogrom (1918) - no hits outside Wikipedia ([33]), or Kraków pogrom (disambiguation) (again, no hits for that exact name)? Or course I am not serious. Those are notable events, although our naming conventions lead to creation of names that are not used elsewhere. The Operation Wilno disambig is a perfectly reasonable name per encyclopedic and military naming conventions - actually for more than one; hence the disambiguation. Your dislike of "Wilno" is no reason to delete the article, as many have pointed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike lack of WP:RS for this name. But leaving your off-topic speculations, does your post mean that you finally admit that the term "Operation Wilno" was created by authors of this article? If you still do not admit this fact, please provide MULTIPLE WP:RS for this exact term. Operation Wilno that is. M0RD00R 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The alleged violation of WP:NOR, even if true, is not substantial. Evidence of use of the term has been provided. That is good enough. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline does not apply to disambiguation pages. --SmokeyJoe 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One vote[34] is enough. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:49, 26 October 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_Wilno&oldid=1138187150"