Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Charly


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation Charly

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

What at first seems to be an impressive article, is completely lacking in notability and sources. Google only comes up with 224 hits (half of which are wiki mirrors), 4 News hits for all dates, no Google books or scholar. The bulk of the material is from the Spanish language paper El Clarin. It appears to rely heavily on WP:NOR as none of the other sources mention "Operation Charly". Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and is not a newspaper. Delete. CENSEI (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks well sourced to me. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You speak spanish? CENSEI (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit. Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you are vouching that the sources do indeed agree with th content they cite? CENSEI (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. I said what I said, nothing more or less. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How did you come to the conlcusion that it was "well sourced" if you never read the sources? CENSEI (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is referenced to a wide variety of reliable sources. A reasonable yardstick. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A "wide variety of reliable sources" hmm ... lets see. Is RISAL, The Network of information and solidarity with Latin America, which stopped posting information to its website 9 months ago, a reliable source? Is "Algeria Watch" a reliable source? After looking at all the other sources, some arguably reliable in the context of Wikipedia, none with one exception mention anything about "Operation Charly". So far, the only "reliable source" that mentions an "Operation Charly" is one single 3000 word newspaper article. Can an entitre article be based off of one source? Now, I will ask you again, is this article and its subject "Operation Charly" supported by "multiple reliable sources", or is your "keep" vote based on something else? CENSEI (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article uses as sources major newspapers in three countries. That's good enough for me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * None of which you have/can read and only one that mentions "Operation Charly". The use of the others, which I have read, are used to argue a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I think thats textbook WP:OR. CENSEI (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. In repsonse to the above exchange; someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Wikipedia Sourcing roles disciminate regarding the language of the source. There is a general prohibition on filling the External Links sections with non-English links (with some exceptions), but if the only sources on a topic are from non-English publications, that does not disqualify a topic from having a Wikipedia article. If someone believes that a source is a hoax or has been added in bad faith, and does not read the language, the onus is on the claimant to find someone who does and who can call B.S. if needs be. No vote per the article as I lack enough knowledge of the subject to cast an informed opinion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not the issue of the non-English shorces, the issue is that only one of the sources is about "Operation Charly", the Clarin article, the rest of the non-english sources are used as WP:SYNTH the articles other portions. CENSEI (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: No opinion on the article currently, but a paragraph in CIA activities in Argentina uses this article as a source.


 * If this article is kept, the paragraph should be re-sourced. If this article is deleted then the paragraph should be as well.  D C E dwards 1966  18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete The only English source, the Noam Chomsky article, is now a dead link. This is an English encyclopedia. If all of the sources are in other languages, how can editors evaluate them? Until there is some English sources, I would have to voto to keep them out. How can someone who is researching this subject verify that what is in the article is accurate? --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not having sources in English is, by no means, an impediment. Very valuable information would be lost otherwise. We have contributors from all over the world, and Spanish is one of the most important languages in use. Mariano (t/c) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think the main problem with the article is the title. Operación Charly is not a widely used name for what it's being described. The Clarín (the most importante Argentine newspaper) article uses "Operación Charlie", while La Nacion (probably second) doesn't use a particular expression. Others use "Death Squads", which could refer to other similar operations. In short, while Operation Cóndor was a cooperation between several Latin American dictatorships, Charly/Charlie was about the cooperation between the Argentine military government and the CIA, and the spread of the anti-guerrilla technics to Central America. Have this in mind when serching for referencies, but I think the hole thing is quite documented. Mariano (t/c) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Or move the contents to Operation Condor or a neutral title. I agree with Mariano that the main problem seems to be the title Operation Charly, it's unclear where it has come from. As far as I can see Clarin cites it from the book R. Cardoso, R. Kirschbaum, and E. van der Kooy: Malvinas, la trama secreta and the Spanish term is Operación Charlie. The State Department document concerning Raúl Héctor Castro's meeting with Viola in 1979 cited by Clarin is available online, the document concerning a meeting with Argentine Intelligence can be found here. The Argentine operations in Central America are well sourced (in English too), e.g. Bob Woodward: Veil pp. 184 ff. or the Interview with Duane Clarridge.--zaphodia (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Two databases of scholarly work return no result for "Operation Charly." A books.google search has one hit unrelated to the subject of this article and a news.google search has one hit unrelated to this. Agree with the nom: At first glance it looks like a good article. However, without WP:RS there is no reason to have an article. And for the record, websites like www.algeria-watch.org are not reliable and the reliable sources in there cite background knowledge indirectly related. This may indeed be real, but we don't have the sources. We66er (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is based on a text attributed to Maria Seoane. She is definitely a biased source, but a competent one. In a civil war, all sources are biased. Can anybody check the content/tone of the wiki article to her printed texts, to verify that at least this source is correctly narrates? NVO (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see the name of Maria Seoane in the article? The only journalist sources are citing information that is about commonly known history of killings in South America. Not a single WP:RS is about "Operation Charly." It's looking more like this article is a hoax. We66er (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well-sourced article that may suffer from having the wrong phonetic for 'c' being used. Possibly should be moved to Operacion Charlie. How many times do people have to be told that it's valid, but at 'Operacion Charlie'? More sources in English, ie Bob Woodward, are listed above.
 * Comment: 1) The Woodward quote is about CIA operations in the country. NOT, I repeat, NOT about this particular one (Operation Charly/Charlie) in English or Spanish. 2) http://www.desclasificados.com.ar/index.php?ref=http://www.desclasificados.com.ar/i.php?i=1478 does not contain the word Operation Charly or Operation Charlie in English or Spanish. 3) desclasificados.com.ar isn't a WP:RS. There is nothing about the title or claims in the article in the article. Offer a few WP:RS that mentions Operation Charlie or Operation Charly. I don't see any. We66er (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (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.