Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Oxpecker


 * 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. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Operation Oxpecker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

My gut is telling me this is a copyvio of some study/report - but I cannot find such a source. Either that or it is an essay, full OR, no refs. The topic itsel seems like it might be notable enough. In my search for copyvio, I found several news articles talking about "Operation Oxpecker". Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)



The source is an MSc Paper on this conservation project done at Mpongo Private Game Reserve (Which I am affiliated with) as part of the conservation and rehabilitation work. We have decided to share the information and our experience with such a complex project and I have summed up some notes from the paper. I assumed Wikipedia will be the correct place to share this kind of information. Please do not delete, I guarantee no information was copied from anywhere on the internet and the information provided is for sharing of knowledge purposes. Dvirgeva (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know where the information came from. Unfortunately, this largely counts as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and most of the information will need to be deleted as the information is not WP:VERIFIABLE from WP:RELIABLESOURCES. However, the topic itself seems like it may be notable enough for an article. However, that article must only include information which can be verified from reliable sources (newspapers and magazines, etc). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. As far as I can tell, the "London" in this article relates to East London, Eastern Cape, rather than the London. So I don't think is actually an England-related discussion. (Oh, and on the article itself, it's unlikely this will survive a deletion discussion, but you might be able to have an article on the game reserve and mention Operation Oxpecker in that.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- An M.Sc. paper is at most an essay, and very probably WP:OR. If the M.Sc. paper cited sources, as I would expect at this academci level, they should be added.  Headings should be converted to WP style, i.e. not black capitals and links made to the correct WP articles.  If this can be done in the next seven days, we may be able to keep this article, but at present, it cannot be.  If the source copied is your copyright and you are releasing it from that, please put a note to this effect on the article's talk page.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious cut-and-paste (note the reference to Appendix 4???, absence of wikilinks, non-standard formatting). Clearly taken from OR of unknown copyright status, creator still hasn't clearly identified the source. No indication that any proper academic sources have been consulted  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:38, 23 January 2012 (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.