Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been created solely as a list of external links to videos, contrary to WP:NOTLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete this site! I believe that Cordless Larry is interpreting the WP:NOTLINK policy in a very draconian manner. Also, I do not believe this site should be deleted because it contains useful content that is not available anywhere else (on or off the internet.) I believe Wikipedia should be careful about deleting valuable content. Also, I do not believe the site I created violates the WP:NOTLINK policy. The site is not "solely" a list of external links. It contains many references to other Wikipedia sites. See discussion below.

Below is the text from WP:NOTLINK: "Wikipedia is not a ... repository of links ... Policy shortcuts: WP:NOTLINK ... Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. ..."

The site I created is NOT a "Mere collections of external links". In addition to containing external links the site references many related Wikipedia sites. This interrelation of the external links along with the Wikipedia content create product that is very useful and unique. This type of site could not be created without being part of Wikipedia. If a decision is made to delete my site then I believe that the WP:NOTLINK policy is being too narrowly interpreted and I would like to know the procedure for changing the WP:NOTLINK policy to make it more pragmatic and reasonable.

Cordless Larry has suggested that I add a single link to the ISAF YouTube channel to the International Security Assistance Force article. The ISAF YouTube channel is extremely disorganized, chaotic, and confusing/difficult to navigate. I do not see any value in linking to a site like that. There should be a way in Wikipedia to organize external sites with additional Wikipedia content. A Wikipedia site like this would not interfere with any other Wikipedia sites and other sites could efficiently reference it with a single link. The site I created contains the many Wikipedia references that allow for deeper exploration of the topics of different countries, geographic locations, flags, dates, etc. This interrelation of the external links along with the Wikipedia content create product that is very useful and unique. This type of site could not be created without being part of Wikipedia. I would be interested in an additional suggestions from you on how to adapt the Wikipedia site I have created. I look forward to hearing your response. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Userify. It's not much different from bibliographies that many users maintain. Has no place in main space - wikipedia is not a directory of so-called "quality" (who says?) videos. User:NVO (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hmmm i can understand why this article was put up for AFD, in its current format it seems to go against the guidelines . Saying that i do think its pretty useful information and clearly the editor responsible is willing to put in work to make the article acceptable. This is just a suggestion and i dont know if it would make things any better or any less likely to be deleted but perhaps a slightly different title and format could be chosen.
 * For example something like List of ISAF operations with embedded reporters. It could then list each operation (perhaps with a little explanation) and link the video as a source. There are countless articles / lists on wikipedia less useful and notable with noone prepared to do any work on them. Id hate to see a useful article get deleted. Dont know what others think BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think such a list would be notable. The links would be better placed at International Security Assistance Force. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Below are a list of the eighteen (18) Wikipedia internal links that are currently in this site. I believe this is a large number of references for a site that was first created today. I am hoping that this site is not deleted so I have the opportunity to add many more Wikipedia references. I have noticed that many of the locations in this site do not even have a Wikipedia page to link to. I am hoping that in the future these additional geographical locations have Wikipedia pages. To some extent Wikipedia can be tepid. Quality videos from multiple sources energize and give more depth and meaning to Wikipedia.

1. International Security Assistance Force

2. NATO

3. Afghanistan

4. United Nations Security Council

5. 🇪🇪

6.

7. 🇫🇷

8. Afghan National Army

9. 🇺🇸

10. 🇩🇪

11. Kunduz

12. Provincial Reconstruction Team

13. United States Marine Corps

14. Special Operations Forces

15. United States Navy

16. Operation Khanjar

17. Helmand Province

18. Musa Qala

Mfstelmach (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article may have a number of links to other Wikipedia articles, but its subject is external videos. These are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear BritishWatcher, Thank you for your comments. I would be more than willing to change the title to what you suggest or something similar ... List of ISAF operations with embedded reporters. I would also be happy to make any reasonable changes to the content to make it more compliant with Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, Please explain why you feel the list described by BritishWatcher would not be notable. This topic is extremely timely and contains information that is important to many countries in the world. I disagree that the links would be better placed at International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) site. Putting too many links on the ISAF site might unbalance that site. This way only one link on the ISAF would be needed to link to the hypothetical site named: "List of ISAF operations with embedded reporters". This collection of links was very difficult for me to find, document and cross-reference in Wikipedia. I get the impression from you that you feel this list is trival and any 6 year old could create in a few seconds. Most of the videos on the internet are very low quality and are not made by professional news reporters. To me it seems that these quality videos are like gems to be preserved. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, in order to meet the guidelines at Notability, the topic of the article needs to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This has nothing to do with preserving the videos since they are hosted on YouTube in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear NVO, Please say more about the "bibliographies" that you mentioned. Are you talking about a private bibliographies that users keep on the own computer or a bibliography on a Wikipedia page. Also, you seem to feel that it is difficult to determine "quality". I suggest that videos made by any professional news reporter be considered a quality video. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NVO is suggesting userfication, which would involve moving the article content to your Wikipedia namespace, such as the page User:Mfstelmach. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear NVO and Cordless Larry, I do not believe that moving this site to my userspace is a good solution. It trivializes the material and keeps others from editing, improving, and correcting the material. I believe this site belongs in the Wikipedia main space. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, You and I really disagree about guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. Just because a video is hosted on YouTube doesn't mean it can be found reliably, repeatable (and unedited) tomorrow, next week or a year from now. If YouTube is your main concern then I believe many or all of video references that are produced by multiple professional news reporters are available from multiple sources other than YouTube. Getting back to guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. Let me go through them one a time:

1. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." - Professional news reports address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. - This seems clear enough. 2. "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." - All forms of media are acceptable so external video links as well as internal Wikipedia links are both considered to be reliable. - Having muliple professional news reporters that are at least one step removed provide reliable secondary sources. 3. "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability ... Multiple sources are generally preferred." - Multiple professional news reporters seem to me to be one of the most objective secondary sources that exist. 4. "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject..." - Again multiple professional news reporters seem to me to be one of the most independent of sources that exist. 5. "Notability requires verifiable evidence it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim." - The site in question contains numerous internal links to Wikipedia. - If we assume that all of these links are notable then the site that references them is also likely to be notable. - In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that reports from professional news reporters have been verified. 6. "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline..." - The site in question has coverage from multiple reliable sources including different countries armed forces, new reporters, - international organizations, etc. - This seems to be sufficient coverage. If my above understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is wrong then please explain what I am missing. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm now confused about what you are arguing is notable. Are you arguing that the operations are notable or that the videos are? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that the SITE is notable and the site includes the operations, the videos, the internal wikipedia links, the external links and the Gestalt synergy of the combined result. The whole exceeds the sum of the parts. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What site? Do you mean the article? The point is that every Wikipedia article needs a subject, and that subject needs to be notable. At the moment, the article's subject is a collection of videos, which are not notable according to the criteria used to judge this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's subject is "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters." I believe this is a very important and notable subject. It is the presence of the embedded reporters that give the article strong notability. I am willing to rename the article if that would help. Also, I agree that the article could be improved with less emphasis on the videos produced by the reporters and put more emphasis be put on the ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters. Perhaps a good title is "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters." I am open to other titles or other revisions to improve the article. I don't believe it is reasonable to "userfy" or delete this article. Right now the article is just in its infancy. It is easy to throw rocks at something that was just created less than 1 day ago. I believe this article could evolve in something very useful; if given a chance. I am really surprised that you don't see value in the article. I am wondering ... Have you viewed any of the videos in full? They are only a few minutes long. Please take a few minutes and view a few of the videos in full from several different countries. It is quite interesting to see how different countries conduct military operations. Perhaps you might change your mind after seeing the rich content that the professional reporters add. If the article is not going to be deleted I would I would like to write a more detailed summary of the video and relate that summary to more Wikipedia links. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as it stands the topic of the article is "Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country". If you were to change that to "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters" (and move the article accordingly) then you might be able to make the case that the topic is notable. I don't think that the videos alone would establish the notability of such an article though because they are not independent since they are published by NATO. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Cordless Larry, I agree! This article really does need a name change to "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters" (or something similar.) I plan to do this. Also, it is a problem that most of the references are from NATO and more non-video references are needed. However, I believe at least one of the videos is currently from a non-NATO source. I completely agree that many more videos are needed from non-NATO sources. If this article is not deleted then I plan to add other references from non-NATO sources. I am hoping that this resolves this issue so I can move forward and clean up this article. I appreciate your feedback and I learned a lot about Wikipedia:Notability policy and WP:NOTLINK policy in the process of this discussion. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that my comments were helpful. I really don't think that any of the videos can be used to establish notability though since they come from the same embedded reporters who are part of the topic of the article. You'd need to find properly independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Cordless Larry, I agree that other media references (video and non-video) are needed to establish notability for this article. I believe I have found a fairly large number of independent media references. I would like to get your advice. Should I try to improve the article or should I create new article with an improved name. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is probably to prepare a replacement article in your userspace (for example, at User:Mfstelmach/ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters). Then, when you're happy with it, you can move it to the main encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Cordless Larry, Per your advice, I have created the following page in my userspace - "User:Mfstelmach/ISAF Afghanistan and related operations with embedded professional reporters." Let me know if you have any suggestions to improve this title. I will let you know when I feel the new article is ready to move to the main encyclopedia to get any feedback from you. I am hoping to get this new article finished quickly. And in the meantime,  I would like my current article to not be deleted until my new article is ready. How does that approach sound to you. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine other than the request to delay potential deletion. I'm not sure whether that is possible. The deletion discussion will probably continue per Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Cordless Larry, I agree that the deletion discussion will probably continue per Articles for deletion. If I can get my new article finished quickly enough then the deletion of the current article will become a moot point. Thanks again for the help and advice. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy then delete. The subject of the article (i.e. the videos) is not notable. Location (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Location, I appreciate your feedback. However, please provide a more detailed response that explains your position so I can respond. Also, please respond and let me know if you have viewed a few of the videos in full from several different countries. I am concerned that you may be judging the videos without even watching them. Remember Wikipedia:Notability guidelines ... "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." Is there a bias against the media of videos? Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I really don't see why this even needs to be userfy'd. The video linkspam is not notable and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Other then that, I second what Larry said. Tavix | Talk  02:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Tavix, I appreciate your feedback. However, please provide a more detailed response that explains your position so I can respond. I have the same concern as with user=Location (above). Please respond and let me know if you have viewed a few of the videos in full from several different countries. I am concerned that you may be judging the videos without even watching them. Remember Wikipedia:Notability guidelines ... "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." Is there a bias against the media of videos? Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mfstelmach, the point is that the videos are the subject of the article. They cannot be used to establish their own notability. That requires an independent source. To save space here, I'm going to try to explain this further on your user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The notion of collecting these links is better handled by setting up a YouTube account, and using it to compile the list. YouTube allows that, with commentary. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - article creator has usified it to User:Mfstelmach/ISAF Afghanistan and related operations with embedded professional reporters‎. See discussion above. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a textbook example of an article which fails WP:NOTLINK. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article is explicitly a repository of links. No amount of renaming attempts changes this.  The test is to remove all the external links.  Do we still have a viable article after that?  No. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary link farm. Any decent links can easily be factored into other appropriate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more than a link farm. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 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.