- 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Note that mhunter's arguments slightly crosses wires. The question is not really whether the subject in question exists, but whether there is enough external referencing to be able to construct a viable encyclopedia article on it. -Splashtalk 17:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little evidence of existence or notability A2Kafir 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mentioned in NY Times article: [1]. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep per Jamie. JoshuaZ 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 'Delete per Monica. JoshuaZ 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jamie. --Terence Ong 12:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable, with elements of patent nonsense. The Times article is real, but the article distorts it significantly; other sources show how far off target the article appears to be -- [2] [3] for example give different accounts. Bottom line -- all that's verifiable is that it was a military code phrase; just what it refers/referred to has only been fuzzily described at best, and there's no verifiable evidence that it's currently used for any purpose after its public disclosure. And "unconstitutional" because it may violate a statute? That's patent nonsense. There's probably an article to be written about the code phrase, but this article is written about a "program" that doesn't exist, according to the article's own references. Monicasdude 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve as needed. The article should be rewritten to include only what is verifiable from reliable sources. In addition to the Times article, see also this article from the well-respected GlobalSecurity.org. MCB 06:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one look at the conspiracy theories category [4] could justify keeping this article, and runs counter to the need being asserted for concrete evidence of existence. Based upon the nomination criteria of little evidence for existence, we would also need to delete the UFO and Bigfoot articles. Although it would nice to see the article expanded, and due to the dearth of evidence, reclassify the article as a conspiracy theory and make it clear that the existence of the unit not certain. mhunter 08:23, 29 March 2006 (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.