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. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop[edit]

No significant coverage other than in specialized and/or local media--fails WP:N. Bongo matic 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a multitude of significant media coverage about this event:

Poor reasoning and logic, should not be deleted. -Signaleer (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the above look like reliable, 3rd party sources (pretty much all look like specialised sites for military personnel). Per nom. tomasz. 17:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None look reliable or credible? The vast majority are from military websites, hence the .mil address, not to mention that this is an article about the military. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia which are military specific, why exclude this one? Again, poor logic and reasoning. -Signaleer (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the sources are "specialized" does not make them not reliable or credible, the important thing is that they are "independent of the source". Meets 100% of the General Notability Guidelines of WP:N Raitchison (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks 'reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' as required by WP:N. News releases and stories on military websites aren't enough to establish notability as these aren't independent of the article's topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the fact that the other sources are on millitary related sites makes them not "independent of the subject". It seems that any subject that has a specific focus will tend to primarily receive coverage in sources that focus on the same broad subject, for example the article Particle physics, all the sources are in publications that focus on physics and particle physics does that mean that there are no sources that are "independent of the subject"? Obviously science based articles are often held to a somewhat different standard but I believe the point still holds. Raitchison (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Raitchison, the "independent of the subject" rule is for things like one-time fictional characters in a film etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right: the full summary of WP:N I was quoting from is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The requirement for independent sourcing applies to all topics and 'independent of the subject' is defined there as "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". In this context, basically all of the above references are press releases issued by the military or stories which were placed on military websites by the military. As such, they are not independent of the article's subject as they are basically self publicity. The kind of independent sources which are needed to establish notability are stories published in newspapers independent of the military which didn't have to run the story (and hence did so as they judged it a worthwhile topic to cover). Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we can't use military sources for military articles, there is a story below by an independent news channel. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent sources are generally required to establish notability. Being on a TV news broadcast once doesn't make something notable - see WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just on one TV news broadcast, I've found it at these independent locations as well; [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Also I don't think the argument; "you can't use military sources for military articles" holds water very well, I'd like to see you write an article about a maths equation without use math-related sources ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is that the source's author and publisher be independent of the topic of the article not that it cover something else altogether! (eg, the source shouldn't be written or published by someone or an institution responsible for the topic of the article - to use your maths analogy, a paper by a mathematician in a peer reviewed journal isn't enough to establish notability for something they've discovered themselves (though it is a great source once notability is established), but a paper by a mathematician in a journal on someone elses discovery is an excellent way to demonstrate notability - the basic principle is that things aren't notable just because the person or organisation responsible for it says that they are). ~~If you haven't done so, please read WP:N and WP:RS as this is a pretty important concept.~~ Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that last sentence a bit patronising, we both know I've read them. I've been using Wikipedia for 3 years and written an FA class article, which you also probably know. Lets keep it nice ay? Least I put a friendly ";)" after my last post. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of your previous Wikipedia experience - no offence was intended. I've just struck the offending bit of the post. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate, much appreciated :) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for providing those sources. The first one doesn't load for me but looks OK from its URL, the second one isn't a reliable source (it states right at the top of the page that it is a "user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post"), the third one is another military website (see: [7]), the fourth one might be OK, the fifth is a military press release (the same one as DVIDS) on what appears to be an unreliable source and the sixth one is a YouTube video on a blog - neither are considered reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, two of the sources are still ok (no.1, no.4), not counting the News 14 one also. Don't know why you can't view no.1, it's not a special site or anything, just on the first page of a google search. I notice there's two "/" next to each other in the URL, could that be affecting it. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability seems to be the only reason for deletion, I would say the sheer number of references/google hits is proof of notability. I can see a common complaint is that the above refs are from military sites, but I found this article from News 14 Carolina just by googling it! Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reference was why the nomination explicitly mentioned "local media". Bongo matic 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the above ones from the Department of Defence etc don't count as "local media". Also News 14 covers all of the state of North Carolina, isn't that too big to be classed as local media? North Carolina is bigger than Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that's a country! Ryan4314 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (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.