Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Tight Screw (3rd nomination)

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) Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tight Screw

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

Fails WP:GNG same as the last AFD. Absolutely nothing in the news on this since the few brief mentions last year. The operation never happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The operation is proposed and may be underway, and the article is important, has sources, and should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SNOW, after two AfDs, Darkness Shines is just being tedious. Mar4d (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan) per above and the article has enough sources. Can also be treated as a military history article... notability has been established and sources do not need to continue to talk about it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The nominator provides no reason for nominating again, when his two previous nominations failed and the most recent one was less than six months ago. The subject was notable in October 2012 so it's still notable now, even if it's received no more coverage: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Darkness Shines, please stop nominating this article. Dricherby (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? It was not notable then, it is not notable now. It had no coverage then, it still has none as it never happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But tedious nomination, again and again is not appropriate. It is proposed, and may be carried out any time by the Pakistan Army. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fake article, you cannot have an article on something which has never happened. And to say "it may be" does not mean it will, read WP:CRYSTAL Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not for "it may be". It's ready, and the waiting is for the consent of the government, and the supplies. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have have an article on something that never happened: Operation Sealion and yeti, for example. The article is sourced and two of those mention "Operation Tight Screw" by name. Passing the previous AfD indicates consensus that the topic is sufficiently notable and you shouldn't keep renominating to try to get the result you want. Dricherby (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sources please Faizan, The Long War Journal tells a different tale. Dricherby there is a world of difference between something historical and something which was a rumor to begin with and never materialized. And I am not getting what the The Yeti has to do with this? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Totally Agreed with Dricherby. There is no conformation of this "never materialization". Faizan -Let's talk! 13:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even Pakistan does not know if it will happen "In the spring of 2010, Pakistan held out similar promises to the U.S.; that October, it claimed to be conducting stealth attacks on jihadists. Then, in May 2011, it again claimed to be planning an offensive which never materialised. Even if it does act, the record suggests there is no guarantee of even limited success."[1] "It was due to the rumours spread by external media and also unfortunately by our internal political parties and media that in the recent past, reports of military operation in North Waziristan caused a lot of panic among the majority of locals who began fleeing the area."[2] "We might, if necessary, undertake operations in NWA, in the timeframe of our choosing and requirements" as "determined only by our political and military requirements. It will never be a result of any outside pressure."[3] Never happened, nor is it about to Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the LWJ "Interior Minister Rehman Malik has just informed us that the Pakistani military is not about to launch an operation in North Waziristan"[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the yeti as an example of something which doesn't exist, has never existed, but is still notable because people talk about it a lot. My point is that, even if Tight Screw is just rumour and the Pakistani military was never even planning such a thing, the topic can still be notable if enough reliable sources talk about it. Your argument appears to be that the topic is not notable because the operation either does not exist or exists only as plans but this is not a valid argument. Dricherby (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough, perhaps a redirect to War in North-West Pakistan would be more appropriate. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has not (yet?) happened, but it has notably not happened. Some more sources that are not cited in the article: [5][6][7][8]. The nomination is misguided, if not tendentious, as it gives no reason why the consensus in the last AfD discussion should change. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reliable sources give in-depth coverage on the subject of this AfD. Therefore, the subject appears to pass WP:GNG, and thus should not be deleted. Most of the sources I found, are not sources from the West, but that does not make those sources any less reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confused keep. I haven't been able to locate a notability guideline specifically for military operations, so all I have to go on is WP:EVENT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not existing does not mean something is not notable. Also Notability is not temporary - this achieved notability at one point, it doesn't "lose it" because the operation has failed to materialise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 11 May 2013 (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.