Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Service codenames: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:41, 1 March 2007

Latest revision as of 16:25, 10 February 2022

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 17:

*'''Keep''' Needs better sourcing, but that should be relatively easy to find. Agree with the above two editors - this is useful reference information and it makes sense for it to have its own article. [[User:JavaTenor|JavaTenor]] 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[WP:USEFUL]] is not a valid criterion for inclusion. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Encyclopedic , IMO, and now sourced by recent edits. [[User:A Train|A Train]] ^{[[User_talk:A_Train|<small><span style="font-size:smaller; color="DarkBlue:darkblue;">[[User_talk:A_Train|take the]]</font></smallspan>]]} 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The source that is being used lists a [[Spooks|TV Program]] codename for [[Queen Elizabeth II]] That shows how it does not pass [[WP:RS]] [[User:DXRAW|DXRAW]] 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I believe the discussion here is about whether this is encyclopedic or not. If it is poorly sourced, that should be fixed, but it isn't a critera for deletion. [[User:Johnn 7|Johnn 7]] 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Line 28:

*'''Keep'''. These are kind of obscure, but interesting and I believe worthy of inclusion. I have a book somewhere with more of these in them, I'll add them later on, perhaps. They have codes for more than just people. --[[User:UsaSatsui|UsaSatsui]] 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>