Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Mand References

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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Operation Mand

[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)

I was not able to discover any sources apart from the India Today issues published following the event. The India Today articles were reporting the news about the military operation. Following that, there's virtually no coverage. No sources to establish WP:GNG nor WP:NEVENT — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftify to develop. User4edits ( talk) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Develop using...? — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 19:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
To expand and explain on this, we draftify articles which have the potential to be notable. This event occurred some 35+ years ago. If the scholarship did not appear in 3 decades, the probability in the next 6 months is miniscule. This article does not have the potential. See below. — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 07:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 17:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. I don't think it's a great article, but the subject exists, is referenced in RSs, has been discussed in those RSs outside the immediate timeframe, and is the subject of a film. That easily clears the hurdles of SIGCOV specifically and GNG overall. It needs a rewrite, not a deletion. My main trouble with the article as it exists is the spamming with {{cn}}. Adding a tag at every full stop (there are five cn tags in the first six sentences, in addition to five inline citations) is excessive and unhelp. It prevents the reader from understanding what value may be in the article and comes off as petulant. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
has been discussed in those RSs outside the immediate timeframe and subject of a film - please provide evidence to establish notability — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 15:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The film is discussed in the Hindustan Times. The event is discussed in IT, two books and a Defence Review cited in the article itself. A quick search shows at least seven more sources that mention it explicitly and many, many more that reference the event without the name specified. Are you claiming that this didn't happen, or are you unsatisfied with the citations? Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
If you're referring to ref #10 Hindustan Times [1], that citation failed to verify. So, please provide evidence that this Operation is the subject of a film. The Defence Review journal one single sentence. Have you found sources that talk about the Operation in detail apart from "mention[ing] it" with or without naming it explicitly?

This is a deletion discussion whether an article is warranted given the topic has notability. Please provide sources that address the topic and prove it has significant coverage per WP:GNG or atleast that it could be considered under WP:NEVENT. — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The subject is referenced in two books (cited in the article), several India Today articles (cited), and a Defence Review (cited; one sentence is still a reference). I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search, showing that someone who cares can improve the article over time. It's not my field of expertise and I'm just not interested in modern secular terrorism, so I'll leave research and improvements to editors who focus on it. As I stated above, I believe that satisfies SIGCOV and GNG. You don't agree, and that's fine. That's why we discuss AfD and don't leave it up to the whims of individual editors. I'll stick with 'Keep', thanks. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Let's go one by one
The subject is referenced in two books (cited in the article) - false

India Today articles (cited) - usual news reports from when the event happened, no coverage thereafter

Defence Review (cited; one sentence is still a reference) - one sentence doesn't cut it to WP:GNG, please read what "significant coverage" means

I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search - I found nothing that satisfies what we consider a reliable source is. Sources like sikhiwiki.org are user-generated and are unreliable.

For the sake of repeating myself, cites #2 (Link news magazine), #3 #7 #8 (India Today news magazine), #6 (Defence Review - single sentence) - verifies the content. The Line and India Today are covering the news. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - we don't create articles for every other event.

From WP:EVENTCRIT - #1 there is no enduring historical significance; #2 widespread (national or international) impact ... very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards - nope; #3 lesser coverage or more limited scope - let's see; #4 let's assume it's the case #3 here.

For the WP:EVENTCRIT #3 lesser coverage or more limited scope -
WP:LASTING - event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance - no evidence that this Operation is a precedent or catalyst for sth else of lasting sig.

WP:GEOSCOPE - Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group - let's see
Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article (emphasis mine) - the news coverage is the sole basis for this article. Outside of this coverage, there is no evidence of published material.

events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group - no evidence that this has such long-term impact, even in the Mand area where the Operation took place.

So, no WP:GEOSCOPE

WP:INDEPTH - event must receive significant or in-depth coverage - Ref #3 India Today comes close to that. However, it is reporting the event as part of a wide event - Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally - I'll be cautious (but won't reject) here to use this India Today report to confer notability.

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - no coverage/scholarship beyond the event cycle.

WP:DIVERSE - Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable - no evidence of such coverage. Also - A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article - this is for the 3 citations of India Today. No evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources.

An alternative to deletion, if one wants to argue that the search term would be useful, would be to merge and redirect to Tat Khalsa or Avtar Singh Brahma.

Online/Offline sources are acceptable but not an argument that "I found references to more with a rudimentary Google search" doesn't cut it - especially when that particular notion is challenged. Notability requires verifiable evidence WP:NRV - and nothing of such sort was provided. WP:N's second line reads: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that an article is warranted on Wikipedia. — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:01, 19 August 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.