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The result was withdrawn. I'm persuaded, albeit through no fault of the article, that the topic is notable. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Buccaneer[edit]

Operation Buccaneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested WP:PROD. This article contains no assertion of notability. Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) contested the PROD stating that "the external links are assertions of notability." The external links are just a collection of contemporary news sources; I don't see how that asserts anything. Unique Google hits by my reckoning are less than 10,000: there's a proposed World War II operation of the same name as well. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is unclear what the nominator means here by "assertion of notability". There is no requirement for articles to explicitly say that their subjects pass the general notability guideline, which this clearly does with many readily-available reliable sources such as [1], [2] and [3]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize; I thought that term of art was commonly understood. Nowhere does the article explain why its topic is important. It's a recounting of a series of arrests, some pull quotes, and a long list of Warez people. It's barely an article. Just because a topic was covered in a news source at some point doesn't make it notable. It may well be notable; but there's nothing in that article that explains why it would be. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What matters in a deletion discussion is whether the topic actually is notable, which is a different concept from importance, not how well either notability or importance is explained in the article, which can be fixed by editing rather than deletion. The sources that I linked above are not news sources, but books from academic publishers and a peer-reviewed journal article. Plenty more such sources can be found here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2012 (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.