Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Rat Killer


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Operation Rat Killer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources BSOleader (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps speedily. Gbooks reveals what appear to be good sources. The lack of sources on an article -- i.e. its current state -- is not in and of itself a valid reason to delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also note that article was not notified of this Afd, as etiquette suggests. I've pinged him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Lack of sources is not a valid reason for AfD if a cursory BEFORE shows multiple RS - for instance - shows several substantive book sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. A very notable historic event, plenty of sources available., please read WP:BEFORE. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable; lack of RS cites is not a reason to delete. I do hope someone will add them, however. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:BSOleader should understand the difference between "no quotations provided" and "no available sources". Pldx1 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A poorly presented article, needing finishing (it feels incomplete), referencing, and more. However it is about a notable subject on which WP ought to have an article, unless there is something similar to merge it with.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, the least those that claim that sources exist can do is to list them here, in a Further reading section, or preferably as actual sources in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not remotely difficult to find . The onus is not on us to do WP:BEFORE for the nominator. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (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.