Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ofira Air Battle (2nd 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ofira Air Battle

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion befroe, but this tag was removed, and an effort was made to bring more sources and add more information to the article. However, the same problems remain. These are:


 * 1) One Last Pharoah had stated reasons as to why the battle is illogical.
 * 2) Saad El Shazly, the Egyptian Chief of Staff, said that total Egyptian losses upto 0800 on October 7 were only 5 aircraft. Several other Egyptian sources also mention the same thing.
 * 3) El-Gammasy, the Egyptian Chief of Operations, shows that the three airbases targeted in the airstrike on October 6 were: Meleez, Bir Thamada, and Ras Sidr airfields, since they were all in near to the Suez Canal and the actual area of combat. A book by three Egyptian officers who were in Egyptian General HQ during the war also says the same thing.

Hence, we can see that the Egyptians never even attacked Ofira Air Base. We can also see that the 7 Egyptian losses mentioned in the Ofira Air Battle contradict several highly reliable Egyptian sources. Also and most importantly, this battle has no historic value whatsoever. It did not have any effect on the war as a whole. Sherif9282 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: The first AfD discussion can be seen here. -- Nudve (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the sources already cited in the article, the talk page and the previous AFD, here are two others: this source mentions the battle (p. 56), and this one says the Ofira airbase (transliterated here as "Ophira") was attacked. The fact that it is not mentioned by the Egyptian Generals is interesting and arguably noteworthy, but not a proof that all of the other sources are fabrications. About the notability issue, I agree that this was a relatively minor battle in the greater scheme of the war, but I think it has received enough coverage to meet WP:N and WP:MILMOS. An IP commented on the talk page that this battle may have been featured in dogfights, but I can't verify that. -- Nudve (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The source mentions that the Egyptian also attacked the Bir Gifgafa, Al Arish, Ras Nasrani and Aqaba airfields. Another Egyptian source includes only Ras Nasrani as a target in addtition to the Bir Thamada, Ras Sudr and Meleez. The EAF did not go as far as to attack the Arish and Akaba airfields (I presume the latter is close to the Jordanian city of Aqaba), and there is no mention of attacking Bir Gifgafa. Also, that source contradicts what is written in the Yom Kippur War article as well. It states that the EAF had 570 combat aircraft, when the real number was 400, based on the Egyptian Chief of Staff. It's not possible that a dogfight which resulted in 7 destroyed MiGs could take place in 6 minutes. Not only does the battle have no mention among Egyptian commanders, but it also contradicts the casualty count as well. Besides, WP:MILMOS is not a policy/guideline but an opinion/advice. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is easily possible to have downed 7 MiGs in 6 minutes, depends on the engagement geometry. Flight time of an AAM can be measured in seconds.  Justin talk 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I really am busy in the real life but any way You can assume that i agree with Sherif. A small comment: I did not see all DOGFIGHTS series, but i did not find the battle in the wikipedia article supposedly covering all of the series; How can i be featured, when it is not even there? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - No new arguments for deletion have been produced since the last AfD failed, and in the meantime, the article has been improved with additional reliable sources. The nomination seems to be based on the fact the the nominator's original research is at odds with what reliable sources have reported about the event - but that is not a valid reason to delete. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I supported deletion in the past and at the last AfD, but, as Canadian Monkey notes, the article has clearly improved since then.  There may still be some issues, but I am now satisfied that notability is established.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: this source, written by Dr. George W. Gawrych, notes that Egyptian losses upto October 7 included 15 planes, citing Shazli and Gamasy as references. However, there must have been a typing mistake; I double-checked both sources, and they only mention losses of 5 aircraft. The figures on the article contradict the figures given by these sources. So you can see the nomination was not based on original research. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * writing "I double-checked both sources, and...the figures on the article contradict the figures given by these sources." is a pretty clear indication of original research. The source says 15, you claim it's a typo based on your original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I claimed its a typo based on the references and page numbers which Gawrych cited. The 280 killed and 20 tanks lost corresponded to the losses he cited from Shazly and Gamasy, but not the losses in aircraft. The only possible reason for this is that it was a typo. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: If you feel unsourced information in the article is false then remove it. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable but like all articles could stand some improvement. Greenshed (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like Ryan4314 isn't aware what's going on here. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try Sherif, but the reason you have given on my talk page is not a valid reason for deletion, I would instead perform an WP:RFC over the matter or some such. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't see any new arguments for deletion and the pro-deletion arguments based upon WP:OR.  Justin talk 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.