344:, where the other Iraqi-related AfDs have gone, fails to include many of the most notable Operations, e.g. Market Garden, Attleboro, Powder River, Ad Duluyah Sunrise, etc. When the history books are written, I'm sure they'll all be FAs by then. However, right now it is too soon to state that any particular operation is or is not notable. However, conducted at the BCT and above, which requites coordination of 4-5 battalions (5k to 7k soldiers) across a wide geographic area or major city, plus Iraqi troops, are inherently notable.
164:. There are no actionable reasons (NPOV and N) given to delete, just guidelines for things that can be improved. Plus, individual battles are inherently notable, as battles are part of campaigns. Primary sources are completely acceptable until the history books are written. Our article on the Battle of Antietam is composed from the mostly from the official reports of Burnside, McClellan, Lee, and their subordinates--primary sources, the same thing that the history books are written from.
414:. I have read carefully the passionate keep arguments above. I certainly appreciate the feelings behind them, but from the point of view of Knowledge policies and quidelines, these arguments just do not hold water. It is quite possible that in the future there will be books written about this operation and it will become quite famous. But we have to wait until that happens and if it does, there will be no problem with including an article about this operation on WP. See
320:
I do not agree with this recommendation to delete this article. The fact is this is a named military operation in an recent ongoing conflict and it simply hasn't been going on long enough to hit the history books yet. It is also my opinion that the reference is from a good source so it shouldn't be
244:
A fairly minor and unimportant operation with no independant sources attesting to any importance. The article doesn't state that there was any fighting or that the outcomes were particularly significant. Minor battles and military operations are not considered inherently notable and similar articles
384:
There is, as I understand it, only one source given here (for some reasone as an external link rather than a as a reference), the Press
Release by the Iraqi National Force website about this operation. This is not an independent source, since the military operation in question was conducted by the
290:
You have to remember these articles that are getting deleted describe activity under the counterinsurgency doctrine, not the force-on-force warfighter doctrine. Their scale is the same, but the motives (finding insurgents, weapons and intelligence as opposed to destroying an enemy army) are
297:
If the 4th
Infantry Division (source for this article) says its notable, then it is notable. If an individual company or battalion was asserting notability I would say otherwise, however in this case we have to trust the primary source until the history books are
196:
That is not exactly correct, as I stated, it is not an actionable reason, there has to be some other criterion (RS to verify the notability) to make it an actionable reason. However, this operation is notable, so that's not really an issue, is it.
403:. There is also a couple of paragraphs in the news letter "The Advisor" of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq, attributed as "Multi-National Division – North Public Affairs". There is also one mention in what seems to be a blog
418:, "Knowledge is not a crystal ball". It does not have to be a book, of course, if there are several journal/newpaper/magazinge/etc articles, covering the subject in substantial detail, that would be enough. For now, the subject clearly fails
325:
policy. Just because the references are scarce does not make it non-notible. I would state that any names military operations is notible and should qualify to have an article on wikipedia even if its only a
409:
and nothing anywhere else that I could find. Even if one takes the generous view and considers the "Advisor" article as an independent source, this is still miles away from satisfying the requirements of
286:
Having been to Iraq, "battles" don't occur in the traditional force on force sense. Anything deemed an "Operation", especially when conducted by an entire BCT (4,000-7,000 men) over a 2-3 day period is
385:
Iraqi
National Force and the press release is written to publicize it. The link is OK as a primary source for verifiability purposes but it does not go towards establishing notability per
303:
We're going to have to come to some sort of policy especially for this, before most of the OIF articles are deleted. I would err on the side of inclusion as we do with every other war.
341:
130:
Contested PROD, see talk page. There seems to be only one source for this military operation: a press release by one of the involved parties. First, the topic therefore fails
90:
85:
94:
220:
123:
77:
398:
142:
are present. This is generally true for encyclopedia articles, but all the more for military topics, where information coming from the involved parties is
407:
401:
182:
reflects community consensus, and failing this inclusion guideline is possibly the most frequently applied reason for deletion. --
476:
448:
431:
373:
335:
312:
271:
254:
235:
206:
191:
173:
155:
59:
17:
73:
65:
81:
494:
36:
493:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
187:
151:
469:
250:
231:
444:
308:
283:
of them were incorrect, and I may eventually either send them to DRV or wait for them to be recreated.
202:
169:
267:
304:
198:
165:
183:
147:
457:
415:
331:
246:
227:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
440:
427:
262:
Agree with nominator. Also, the tone of the article is not up to encyclopedic standards.
134:
due to lack of independent sources. Second, it does not seem possible to write a decent
364:
263:
139:
135:
50:
404:
322:
394:
327:
111:
356:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
419:
411:
390:
386:
294:
Minor battles for the ACW and
Veitnam are all notable (I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
179:
131:
423:
456:. Until this is referenced by third-party sources, it really isn't notable.
389:. I looked around on the web and could not find anything else that passes
406:. As far as I can tell, that's it. There is nothing, in GoogleNews
487:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
400:. One of them gives a copy of the above mentione press release
439:. A minor, single operation does not need its own article.
279:. I have also disagreed with those previous deletions.
118:
107:
103:
99:
342:
List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War
361:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
321:a problem. Perhaps this is a good example of the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
497:). No further edits should be made to this page.
221:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
397:. A plain GoogleSearch gives just 9 hits
219:: This debate has been included in the
178:This seems to be a misunderstanding.
7:
24:
245:have been deleted in the past.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
74:Operation Iraqi Home Protector
66:Operation Iraqi Home Protector
1:
340:Excellent point. The list at
514:
490:Please do not modify it.
477:05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
449:12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
432:23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
374:22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
336:12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
313:08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
272:04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
255:03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
236:03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
207:22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
192:08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
174:21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
156:19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
60:20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
140:independent sources
475:
376:
372:
238:
224:
58:
505:
492:
468:
371:
369:
362:
360:
358:
225:
215:
146:to be censored.
121:
115:
97:
57:
55:
48:
44:The result was
34:
513:
512:
508:
507:
506:
504:
503:
502:
501:
495:deletion review
488:
365:
363:
354:
117:
88:
72:
69:
51:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
511:
509:
500:
499:
482:
480:
479:
451:
434:
378:
377:
359:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
315:
301:
300:
299:
295:
292:
288:
257:
239:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
138:article if no
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
510:
498:
496:
491:
485:
484:
483:
478:
474:
472:
466:
464:
460:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
392:
388:
383:
380:
379:
375:
370:
368:
357:
353:
352:
343:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
324:
319:
316:
314:
310:
306:
302:
296:
293:
289:
285:
284:
282:
278:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
258:
256:
252:
248:
243:
240:
237:
233:
229:
222:
218:
214:
208:
204:
200:
195:
194:
193:
189:
185:
184:B. Wolterding
181:
177:
176:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
153:
149:
148:B. Wolterding
145:
141:
137:
133:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
56:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
489:
486:
481:
470:
462:
458:
453:
436:
381:
366:
355:
317:
280:
276:
259:
247:Nick Dowling
241:
228:Nick Dowling
216:
161:
143:
129:
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
441:KleenupKrew
162:Strong Keep
416:WP:CRYSTAL
367:Sandstein
291:different.
53:Sandstein
264:TomStar81
298:written.
287:notable.
144:supposed
124:View log
382:Delete.
328:Kumioko
326:stub.--
305:MrPrada
277:Comment
199:MrPrada
166:MrPrada
136:WP:NPOV
91:protect
86:history
46:delete.
461:apital
454:Delete
437:Delete
323:WP:IAR
260:Delete
242:Delete
119:delete
95:delete
424:Nsk92
395:WP:RS
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
465:asha
445:talk
428:talk
420:WP:N
412:WP:N
393:and
391:WP:V
387:WP:N
332:talk
318:Keep
309:talk
268:Talk
251:talk
232:talk
217:Note
203:talk
188:talk
180:WP:N
170:talk
152:talk
132:WP:N
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
473:alk
281:All
223:.
467:~
447:)
430:)
422:.
334:)
311:)
270:)
253:)
234:)
205:)
190:)
172:)
154:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
471:t
463:S
459:C
443:(
426:(
330:(
307:(
266:(
249:(
230:(
226:—
201:(
186:(
168:(
150:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.