Talk:Extraction (military)

Proposed deletion
I removed the proposed deletion template that was placed on this article. I did not write the article. I just moved it from a disambiguation page. Obviously, the article needs sources and expansion, but I believe that the topic can support an article. For example, the tactics used in extractions could be added. Also, notable extraction operations, successful or not, could be added. One example is the failed rescue of hostages in the U.S. embassy in Iran after the revolution in 1979. I think that a proposed deletion template should be used when there is no hope of making the entry into an article, and I do not think that is the case here. If you disagree, please feel free to go through the deletion process at Articles for deletion. If for some reason you wish to talk to me, please do it on my talk page, not here, as I am unlikely to notice it. -- Kjkolb (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it has been more-or-less static for the last three years. As it is, it is not much more than a definition.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reasons for deletion, per Deletion policy. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for what to do when one comes across an article that is short.  See Be bold for what to do when one comes across something that one thinks should be edited but that hasn't been edited in some years. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)