Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEASPRAY


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

SEASPRAY

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wholly unsourced. Plenty of talk about the program on internet forums and other non-reliable sources. Some mentions in reliable sources, but not significant coverage.. There's no real question it existed, but there does seem to be a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are available in the edit history for anyone who wants to restore them, and a WP:BEFORE-type search on Google books on [SEASPRAY CIA] shows, on the first page of ten, among many good snippets, sources such as Newsweek and New York Times Magazine.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources in the edit history, other sources and Google books show mentions of the program. The existence isn't in question. The lack of significant coverage is. I note this is the second AfD I've nominated where you've mentioned BEFORE, implying that there was no BEFORE done. The wording in the nomination makes it clear that it was done. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, disregard. In looking at your other AfD "contributions", you seem to mention BEFORE everywhere, and leave other editors as confused as I am about what you actually mean. Disregard my request to clarify. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in addition to any other solid sources, Sean Naylor's Relentless Strike has a good discussion of Seaspray, which may now be E Company, 'Delta Force' (CAG, 1SFOD(D) etc) . Shouldn't be deleted, just rebuilt and better referenced. May need a pagemove to E Co Delta. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources are those? The two from the article merely mention the unit. Have you discovered more? Are you planning to use the Naylor book? It "may" be E Co? Are you going to do the improvements? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether this unit is notable, under WP:MILUNIT and WP:GNG. I and others believe it is, using the sources I mentioned immediately above. Other issues can be addressed at other forums. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not too convinced that it passes MILUNIT based on the size. I'm curious what part of Naylor's book you felt gave significant coverage? And why wouldn't you want to make the improvements? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Our general rule is that while organic companies (part of battalions) are not notable, independent sub-units are. We have large numbers of articles on special forces units of company size. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . The Smith book is over 300 pages. It devotes about devotes about 4-5 paragraphs (starting on page 42) to Sea Spray and a paragraph in the glossary. All other mentions are brief mentions that they were there during something . Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankyou; you may have GBooks access that I don't!! I'll add the pp.42-43 data to the reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not GBooks....book. You can see a picture of me holding the book on Unscintillating's page since he tried to imply that I didn't really review the source. It's a library......what we had before Gbooks. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great!! I've only seen it in bookshops, and a library I had access to for about 10 minutes before closing. What does it say about SEASPRAY? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing. It spends a couple of paragraphs giving a little background, but then it's just mentions here and there. There may be an item or two that the book could be used as a source for, but I can't see 4-5 paragraphs out of 300 pages as "significant". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you miss my point. Can you repeat exactly what the book says in those two-three paragraphs? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I type out 4-5 paragraphs? I mean that doesn't strike you as a bit of an unusual request? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Under WP:FAIRUSE, the significant, salient details of those five paragraphs, if they had been anywhere near me, would have been in the article long ago. I'm not asking you to copy out 5 (surely you said 'a couple' above?) paragraphs. What I am asking is what are the main points made in those 5 paragraphs? (can't copy out 5, maybe 2, but not five, depending on size). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've clearly said 4-5 paragraphs three times now. Why are you acting like I just invented that? Once more: "It devotes about devotes about 4-5 paragraphs (starting on page 42) to Sea Spray and a paragraph in the glossary. All other mentions are brief mentions that they were there during something." Is there anything terribly unclear about what I'm saying? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is the text we're talking about: ''Longhofer wanted a more covert force that would help mount operations that only a select few would know about. So he set up a top secret unit, called officially the First Rotary Wing Test Activity, but referred during operations by the code name Sea Spray. He equipped it with a mix of civilian and military aircraft. This unit was have been originally to be part of the Activity but Longhofer took it under his control. "The first proposed organizational diagram for the Activity included an aviation component' one former officer said. "General Vaught, apparently with Longhofer's encouragement, elected to start the aviation component separately and stated it would be assigned to the Activity later.'[end page 42] '..Sea Spray was a good idea but Longhofer failed to provide them with the manpower and tools to plan and conduct operations properly. As long as they lacked them, then Longhofer and his Department of the Army cronies could act as the de facto commander and staff."
 * The problem with your 'no significant coverage' argument is that it isn't just this first two paras. After it, the whole of pages 43-45 detail a mission in Lebanon. Four pages, I would strongly argue, in addition to 'Relentless Strike' and other sources, becomes significant coverage on a covert unit like this. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Page 42 contains most or a paragraph about them. Page 43 finishes the paragraph from 42 and contains 1 paragraph about them and starts a second. 44 contains the rest of paragraph 3 and the start of paragraph 4. 45 contains the end of it. Like I said.... 4-5 paragraphs. While you talk about "four pages", you ignore that it's a 300 page book. Slightly over 1% of the book. I don't consider it that significant. A chapter would have been. So riddle me this, if you're looking at the book, like I am, why would you ask me to retype it here? That's absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What you the nominator said in the edit summary was "Bibliography:  Neither are used as references, nor is sufficient information given to find what they're supposed to contribute".  This says that you  the nominator deleted the references because you  he/she didn't like the way that they were presented in the article.  Now you say  the nominator says that they "merely mention the unit".  Does this mean you've  the nominator has now looked at the references you deleted?  Where did you  the nominator read them?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, you just said YOU. I thought that was verboten. Yes, I did say that since neither one had a single inline reference that showed how it was being used. One can't just throw books on the page and say "something is in there". As part of BEFORE, I reviewed them and saw they made mentions that wouldn't constitute significant coverage. There isn't a "are you saying now..." to it. I reviewed them before I nominated this. I even said, in the nom "Some mentions in reliable sources, but not significant coverage." Nothing in my position has changed, but nice try acting like it did. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator has claimed to have read the references in the article that the nominator deleted from the article. Where did the nominator read them?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't speak to people in the third person. It's pretentious and unnecessary. And why are you asking where I read a book? Do you want to know where I was sitting? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided you with some evidence on your talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Added references and removed cn tag and refimprove tag.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. And they all confirm the existence, which was never in dispute. One of the sources you added, however, did have some decent information (ie more than a mention or a sentence). Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep following expansion. Delete. I don't see why such operations are inherently notable, so these mentions do not prove that this topic is notable; we need in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Has my expansion of the article addressed this concern? Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty impressive, ; thanks., what do you think? Drmies (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sold on the article name, but the coverage in high quality sources looks sufficient to meet WP:ORG. The 1987 NY Times story has good coverage of the topic, and it looks like Naylor's recent book adds to this significantly, and there are other very solid sources cited. I've developed featured articles on topics which have received less than five paras of coverage in any given source, and there looks to be sufficient material to sustain this article and develop it considerably. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just expanded the article fairly significantly. From the sources I can access, it appears that this unit was - at least for a while - an independent unit, which is considered a useful indicator of notability by WP:MILUNIT. The level of sourcing on this unit is pretty significant given its highly secret nature, so I'm confident that notability is established. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2016 (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.