Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Oyster

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. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Oyster

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The source used in the article has barely a paragraph on this operation, and it does not appear to be mentioned in the history of the RLI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, and also as per military history notability guidelines "not every exchange of fire, IED strike, or bombing needs to be documented, either as a stand-alone topic or within a larger article". Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MILNG, "not every exchange of fire, IED strike, or bombing needs to be documented, either as a stand-alone topic or within a larger article". Simply not significant enough to warrant its own article. I'll admit that I had trouble checking this due to the existence of a far more famous Operation Oyster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by others this operation is clearly not notable enough to justify its own article. Dunarc (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – and redirect to Operation Oyster (1942). No evidence of notability. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (without redirect) to Rhodesian Bush War#First phase (1964–1972). Move the much more notable Operation Oyster (1942) to Operation Oyster. This does not pass standalone notability (amount of coverage does not amount to much), however it does seem to pass WP:V - and seems like a month long campaign worth a sentence or two in the main article (what is worth mentioning is not so much the fire incident on the car (which set things off) - but the month long campaign to arrest insurgents).Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.