Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opération Serval


 * 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   WP:SNOW keep. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. Any potential mergers can be discussed per Proposed mergers. KTC (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Opération Serval

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable military action, no indication of any significance, WP:NOT, contested prod. The issue is already covered adequately in Mali conflict and does not warrant a breakout article. WWGB (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * keep look here http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/world/africa/mali-islamist-rebels-france.html?hp&_r=1&  Christophe Neff (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

the article needs certainly some improvements but merits certainly not deletion! Christophe Neff (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have improved the article including sourcing, - I think the article merits its place in wiki.en! keepChristophe Neff (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the upcoming full effects and course of the operation as the French intervention unfolds, I would argue that this article is slightly premature (since not enough has happened concerning the operation to warrant a Wikipedia page), but that deleting it would be a pointless exercise since imminent events will bring the operation's notability up dramatically; deleting it now would only mean adding it again later this week (or equivalent) to bring in new information. Benjitheijneb (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

- I have tried to improve the article - in a military operational sense. Perhaps someone could correct ortho + grammar. Thanks!Christophe Neff (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The actions covered in the article are already covered (in slightly more detail) in Mali conflict. I would suggest a merge to that article, which would keep all operations, including those by Malian forces together and in context of the wider war, with no prejudice against recreation if French operations get larger and more distinct from those of the Malians.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Mali conflict. Subject does meet WP:GNG in and of itself. That being said it is part of a larger event. Just as Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to Iraq War, this Operation should redirect as I have proposed. The section, IMHO, could retain its own infobox specific to the French Operation. If the article grows large enough per WP:LENGTH, this can be spun out as its own article again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - The other article has plenty of space. There isn't much material here anyways.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - this deletion request is ridiculous! The operation has begun less than 2 days ago and already a full battalion of French paratroopers, special forces, Army Aviation units and Air Force fighter jets have been deployed. This will turn into a major military operation lasting months! Senegal and Nigeria are shipping troops to the area to support the French and the US is preparing logistical help. As said: this will be a MAJOR military operation and the only reason that there is not much material at the article yet is, that the operation has begun just two days ago! It doesn't make sense to delete this article and in less then 10 days to create it again when more information and more material is available! Which will happen as with the French troops also the international press is on its way to Mali. Therefore: Speedy Keep this article! noclador (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps speedily. A military intervention like this (by a nuclear power and NATO member) is inherently notable, and is a separate topic from the originating conflict. Mcewan (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable for sure, and as more information comes in the article will expand. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or rather Remove Deletion Request: 1. The action is a turning point in the war in Mali and therefore is likely to have lasting influence in the region. 2. It is significant in regard to French foreign policy.  3. It is covered by every major news agency on this planet.  Therefore the deletion request seems to be unjustified and should be removed. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. Although I appreciate the rationale for this being considered worth a separate article as a major turning point in the conflict, having two articles on a largely overlapping subject risks having two articles with different versions of events. The target article can take it, although it needs editing down to condense the inevitable small accretion of detail, and a frighteningly long list of cites that I am sure are often reruns of the same wire story.TheLongTone (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge per nom; this is the usual recentism that afflicts Wikipedia - if it's in the news WE GOTTA CREATE AN ARTICLE!!! No prejudice to restoring as a full-fledged article if and when this goes beyond what's already in the news. Those editors !voting keep need to put this in the historical context of the greater conflict instead of gawking at Google News and deciding this is a Very Big Deal. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You saying France sending attack aircraft, commando units and 300 marines and paratroopers to intervene in an internal conflict, most likely changing the outcome of that conflict, and potentially exposing France to a terrorist attack (security beefed up already) is not a big deal and not notable?...Recount - 5 keep, 5 merge, 1 delete, 1 undefined. EkoGraf (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the event isn't notable, and even if it wasn't particularly notable out of context it would still merit inclusion in the article about the conflict. What I am questioning is the need for an entire article dedicated to external links (basically) that cover a recent event whose enduring and permanent effects are unknown at this point. Thus, at the moment, it merits a paragraph in Mali conflict and nothing more. That's why WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS exist. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the argument that the subject is not notable is clearly flawed. This is a military intervention by a major military power in an internal insurgency of a foreign country. The question of whether it should be covered here or elsewhere is not one for AfD to decide, but the amount of material on the French contribution is undoubtedly going to grow, and the article may well end up including domestic effects on France which doesn't sit very well in an article about the conflict. Hut 8.5 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty much certain to be of lasting notability (in case anyone is wondering what happened with this edit to this discussion by me, I decided to close this discussion per WP:SNOW, then decided that was unjustified given the multiple comments that the article should be merged, then decided to weigh in with my view - but accidently included my discarded closure statement; apologies for any confusion!) Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, the Operation name (Operation Freedom Falcon) for NATO actions over Libya redirects to 2011 military intervention in Libya, so if there is a common name in news reports of French intervention in Mali, it should redirect there. Otherwise, just as Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to Iraq War, Opération Serval should redirect to the general conflict page for current Mali war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article title should be 2012 French intervention in Mali, or similar - which would parallel 2011 military intervention in Libya. However the intervention is in a pre-existing conflict (Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) just as the Libyan intervention was in the pre-existing Libyan civil war. It makes sense in both cases to have separate articles. The Iraq war is a different matter as it was an invasion, not an intervention in an existing conflict. Mcewan (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Operation Freedom Falcon was the Belgian contribution to the American Operation Odyssey Dawn, which ran parallel to the Canadian Operation Mobile, the French Opération Harmattan and the British Operation Ellamy, which together made up the 2011 military intervention in Libya... Operation Freedom Falcon was not a NATO operation; it was the just the name given by the Belgian Military to the deployment of six F-16 Falcons (hence the name Freedom Falcon) under US command... therefore naturally it does not have its own article! But all the deployments by other nations, who acted under their own national command have their own article! In short: Operation Freedom Falcon is off-topic here. And this discussion is a waste of time as the outcome will be inevitably "Keep" (so: lets snowball close this now!). noclador (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All except for Operation Freedom Falcon, which redirects to 2011 military intervention in Libya; why is it that the United States commanded portion gets the redirect and other nations do not? Given the number of sorties, wouldn't it be independently notable, yet part of the military intervention?
 * If one nation's operation is redirected, it would only be logical that all nations' operations be redirected. And if the primary article becomes too large per WP:TOOLONG, spinouts can occur.
 * That being said, until the parent article Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) becomes too large, the French Operation should get its own section within the main article; and at the point it becomes too large, then it should be spun back out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * quick note: The Belgians placed their planes under US-command (as other nations), while the US, France, the UK and Canada kept their assets under their own national commands and coordinated with each other. Only when NATO came in all units came under one single command - therefore until this date there were 4 parallel operations! therefore 4 separate articles. noclador (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Spurious rationale by the nom notwithstanding, this is clearly a notable occurrence. NOTNEWS is intended for things like auto wrecks, murder cases, and other small-scale cases; trying to apply it to an international intervention in an ongoing war is downright stupid. WP:NOTBURO exists for a reason as well. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Clearly notable and international news coverage is expanding by the hour. Little Professor (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nominated as: "Non-notable military action, no indication of any significance"... by now France, UK, USA, Denmark, Canada, Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria are involved; so clearly the operation is 1) notable and 2) ''significant'; therefore I request to end this discussion: Snowball - Keep! noclador (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2013 (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.