Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War)

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The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Chetblong^Talk_Sign 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War)

Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No references, failed speedy delete. Possibly non notable. Needs attention or deletion. CM (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A Himalayan avalanche.

• Keep -- I've added a ref in the article which should hold it up for now while there are no experts in Iraqi and Iranian history to expand it a bit more. I want to edit the article more but I don't like the nom's "on-demand cleanup" reasons (Needs attention or deletion). I won't be a tool for such a behavior. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- I don't know you and had no intention of manipulating you or anybody else. Either the article improves or it should be deleted. Better to have no article than an unsourced article. CM (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- In agreement with the previous comment. (I'm in agreement in substance, but not in tone, that's a better way of putting it). AfD is not the place to go for article improvement, and I'm not sure how this would be non-notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- looks like a major offensive; seems pretty notable. I agree that it needs referencing, though: Google Books shows some books that might be useful, but none of them have full enough previews online. Still, it seems clear that sources are available to someone willing to look. —Salmar ^(talk) 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Clearly a major operation in a major war, and so there shouldn't be any issue of notability at all. The article needs citations, but books have been written about the war, so the argument can't be made the the problem with citations is irremediable. I cannot find a plausible argument for deletion. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- Delete. Then recreate with sources in it. The article has been created by a user who has close relations to sockpuppets and vandals in the past and is still haunted by it. He once tried to fake his very own RfA. Check it out and you'll find I'm right. Yoshaibo (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an article was created by a user who you happen to find questionable is hardly a valid deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Why exactly should this article be deleted? First of all no sources is not a reason to delete an article, and seconldy and most importantly, you see sources at the bottom of the page. Plus this was a major battle that was of importance in a major war. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Absolutely no reason to delete this article. It is well written and provides excellent information on the subject. It's tone is fairly neutral and shows nobodies point of few except for the neutral writers of it's online-sources. But I see there is nothing to worry; the majority of people here agrees with me and wants to keep it. Cheers! Ramtashaniku (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep it looks like an Himalayan avalanche. CM (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (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.