Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small boat 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small boat operations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Unsourced page EggsAndCakey (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)~~ Striking sock of AFreshStart — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs some work, but there are plenty of citations findable that talk about military small boat operations that can be used and demonstrate notability. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced for a decade. This is probably a notable topic but that is not a get-out-of-sourcing card. Should be redirected to a suitable target (Naval_warfare#21st_century?) until and unless some sourcing is provided. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it has not been worked on for over a decade. Certainly the topic can be extrapolated by a lot, but only by a dedicated editor who can re-create this article under AfC if needed. I know that my comment may contradict WP:ATA, but this is the voice of reason. // MitYehor (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading through the sources referenced in Operational Art Can Neutralize the Asymmetric Small Boat Threat in Major Operations, it becomes fairly clear that there is a notable topic here. Some of the more substantial writings on the topic other than the thesis include Take the small boat threat seriously, Surface ship operations in the littoral: ensuring access (which discusses fast patrol boats and coastal defense), Thermal Protection in Small Boat Special Operations, and Detailed Hazard Analysis of WMEC-270 Small Boat Operations, Detailed Hazard Analysis of WLIC-160 Deck Operations, and Risk-based Safety Survey of a WHEC-378 Vessel, and I think we're well over GNG here. I also don't think this is in TNT territory at this point; the content is largely in line with these (and other) sources and can be expanded upon using sources available on the internet. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the nom was a sock, so I have struck the nom's comments above in line with WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: that's fair enough, and I'm not surprised that there exists sufficient coverage to source an article. However, that is not an excuse to leave an entirely unsourced article in mainspace for another decade. As such, if the article is kept, I will wait a week or two for someone from among the Keep voters to take on some of the WP:BURDEN and add at least a modicum of these sources; and if that doesn't happen, I will redirect or stubbify. Policies before essays. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and I would encourage you to help build the article as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, the article is no longer unsourced. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is notable and we do not delete based on the state of an article unless the article is in such bad spage that WP:TNT applies. The spirit of Wikipedia is that any editor can come across and article and provide improvements. That becomes a lot harder to do when there is no article to improve. Writing a new article is much more difficult than adding to an existing article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is worthy of its own article, and it is now sufficiently sourced. There are also concerns about validating a sock nomination. I also agree that WP:TNT doesn’t apply to this article. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2023 (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.