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. Haukur (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural nomination pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12, as while the review concluded that this article is not necessarily covered by the BLPDELETE and discussion that got its previous version deleted, some people wanted a full discussion or had concerns about the quality of the sourcing. Personally I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly a notable investigation based on the sustained coverage of it in multiple reliable sources so it's an easy WP:GNG pass. No problems in WP:NOT. BLP issues at this date do not seem to be a problem as everyone named as commiting a crime in the article is now a convicted criminal. PS - I honestly wish I had never read this article and warn anyone with PTSD issues likely to be triggered by accounts of child abuse not to read it, however, this is not a reason for deletion. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If there are specific issues with the quality of sourcing, those can be discussed on the article talk page. It is perfectly clear that the topic is notable and has achieved substantial, sustained, wide coverage. I agree with everything FOARP says above. Everything. Hug^syrup 12:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is clearly a notable police operation and a notable criminal case. It was sufficiently covered in press. The sources are mostly newspapers and BBC, which is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs some work (particularly, the first paragraph past the lead is written more like a news story intro than an encyclopedia article), but significant media coverage, especially from the BBC, looks like it meets WP:NCRIME. creffett (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - these crimes were a major scandal/outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandvue (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 August 2019 (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.