Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Charly (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. Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Charly
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Google "Operaton Charly" or "Operación Charly". You find out that no historian has ever heard about Operation Charly, indeed, Google knows only person has used this word. The rest of the article is synthesis. This is essentially a single source fringe theory article, which has been deceptively represented as an article about historical events. Luis Napoles (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination sounds like an argument for re-naming, not deletion. The nomination argument alone is not grounds for deletion, even if we then re-name it to "That operation no-one can agree a name for". The central claim of this article is that the Argentinian military planned to export their "Dirty War" methods to Central America, possibly with the collusion of the US. If that much alone stands up, then the article should survive - even with massive re-work. If the US collusion is verifiable, then the article certainly needs to remain, and in broadly its current form. Even if this particular naming is obscure, or just plain wrong, the major content wouldn't be affected by that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename. Wikipedia user Luis Napoles has a long history of POV-pushing edits and advocacy, muich of it bordering on (if not outright being) vandalism per Wikipedia guidelines (please see all of the deleted material on his talk page). This is another issue that fits in with his pattern of Wiki-editing. Thank you. – 166.217.71.89 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On that topic, just look at the recent edit history for Operation Charly. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This IP has no edit history.Luis Napoles (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A little background reading shows that the deletion nominator has a long record of pushing a WP:POV agenda in South & Central America articles. Despite real concerns over the accuracy of the name here (maybe another name might just be clearer anyway?) there seem to be good grounds to support the article's core premises and notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's unfortunate that you resort to ad hominem. What are the article's core premises and notability? This is an article about a journalist's theory, no other sources have been presented. What do you suggest as a name? The current name is absolutely unacceptable, because it deceives the reader (including me, before I googled it) to believe that there existed such operation.Luis Napoles (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits last night reduced a 16kb article to a meaningless stub of a few hundred bytes. That's an undiscussed attempt to delete an article by stealth, a much worse action than the simple graffiti vandalism that we are happy to block the childish editors for. Your past edits to other articles are no better - blatant POV pushing, raising repeated criticism by the community of other editors.
 * The core of this article is, as noted above, collusion between the USA and Argentina to bring the Dirty War methods taught at the School of the Americas into Central America. It's unfortunate that secrecy over an operational name gives you the opportunity to start claiming that none of this took place at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are still resorting to attacking other editors, try to address the problem. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim, including surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Teaching at the School of the Americas should be added into the article School of the Americas. Only a single source claims that there existed some Operation Charly, by a reporter of unknown reliability. If were are to believe Google, the entire Internet has only one non-Wikipedia reference to "Operation Charly". That is a major fringe theory flag.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're working your hardest to keep any "red flags" well away from Wikipedia. You are however still confusing the issue of name vs. existence. Is your point really that there was no Argentinian - USA collusion outside of both countries? That much is already multiply independently referenced (Seoane & Chomsky, and the second only needed a few minutes with my own non-specialist general-interest wooly-liberal bookshelf, not even research through a relevant field-specific resource). The rest is just quibbling over the name, and I've no strong attachment to it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Article is sufficiently sourced, has reliable sources, and Google has many more records than just a Wikipedia article.  I think Luis is pushing an agenda as well. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss the right title on the talk page. Sufficient sources to clearly show notability. So far from this article being fringe, denial of it is what's fringe.  DGG (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 23 April 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.