Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Expose The Government Terrorists

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 speedy redirect to Alex Jones (radio). Kimchi.sg 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Expose The Government Terrorists

No evidence this is a real or notable operation of any kind. No reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. The article cites a source which in fact does not mention the operation. Article's talk mentions another source which is Alex Jones talking about Alex Jones on the radio. Weregerbil 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Weregerbil. My god, we have to draw the line somewhere don't we. SkeenaR 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, more than a few people a sick of "Strivercruft". But pray tell us what CSD criteria this falls under. I trow it doesn't qualify for CSD - it has context and a source(?). Kimchi.sg 09:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I know Striver isn't trying to create cruft. He's created some decent articles, and done some really good work on some things. But I think this one needs to be gaffed. What is CSD? SkeenaR 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of content -- there's no description of what this "operation" supposedly is, other than maybe PR for the radio host's radio program. NawlinWiki 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

read the talk page, its not suppposed to, since it is not article.--Striver 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom and as per WP:V and WP:HOAX ST47 12:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Lack of verifiability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G 12:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

comment bad faith nom, article talk page with nom clearly states that he should turn it into a full redirect if he objected to the contents. This is not a article, its a soft redirect. Im not even going to bother trying to justify it. page is now a FULL redirect--Striver 12:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is not a bad faith nomination. Non-notable unverifiable articles are subject to deletion. Weregerbil 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And how was this an article? Your entire nom is about this not being an article. --Striver 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this AfD nomination is not about "not being an article". Please read the nomination, it's ^ up there: no reliable sources, no notability established. Weregerbil 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those things are the very basis of an article. There is verifiable sources. You have the operation being doubt by Jones together with a explanation of what it is from a verfiable first hand source. Besides a verfiable first hand source, you have the essence of the operation being given coverage in Fox News and Colmes talk show. Aside from that, you have the huge Internet phenomena of people talking about the subject. But of course, none of that is included in the page, SINCE IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AN ARTICLE in the first place. Did you read the talk page were i said that i might turn it into a real article if even more sources did show up? I wanted to wait for a maintream source to mention both the name and contents of the operation, even though it is a notable internet phenomena by now. Did you see me sugest that you turn it into a full redirect if this bothers you`? If yes, then why did'nt you just redirect it instead of starting this, and forcing me to justify my actions? --Striver 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I "started all this" because of the concept of consensus. It is my opinion that the redirect shouldn't exist either because I don't think some phrase that someone blurts out should become a redirect. Others may disagree, so maybe discuss it? Instead of you listing allowed choices and me picking one of them. Weregerbil 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is it appropriate to turn an article in AfD into a redirect? The AfD notice forbids removal of AfD notice and redirecting quite effectively removes the notice. Weregerbil 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Requesting close This all seems to be moot, since article author Striver agreed to a redirect (see talk page of pre-redirect article), and the article has already been redirected (not by me). NawlinWiki 13:56, 19 August 2006 (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.