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 delete. --jonny-mt 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation United Front[edit]

Operation United Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Minor action, possible POV with only the U.S. mil. source TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no independent attribution of notability, nor any found during a Google News Archive search. There was an Operation United Front during the Gulf War -- a domestic charity organized to support military families -- that may be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify this rather quickly, so I'm not sure what search term you used. See [1][]http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/postnews/blizzard/blizzard_archives/index.asp?issuedate=5/11/2006]. MrPrada (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Dhartung. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Idea that this is non-notable borders on ridiculous, luckily, deletion cannot occur based on notability per WP:NOT#policy. Should be verified like any other battle stub, but there are no grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not an anchor in WP:NOT. WP:NOTE is a guideline and cleary states that lack of notability is grounds for deletion. Taemyr (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original reserach. Yahel Guhan 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is from a series of operations in 2006 by the same author, compiled using PAO sources. It is not OR. MrPrada (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources have been provided. Taemyr (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, it's in dire need of a rewrite. Tagged with ((intro-rewrite)). B.Wind (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (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.