Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18

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 redirect to National Security Agency. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18

United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Two sentences of essentially meaningless speculation into a directive that has "apparently been released." Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Read the directive here. I am not sure what to make of it either. I've had it on my watchlist, but never found the time... As I read it now, it appears to be a formerly secret document released in edited form via FOIA which contains a set of instructions for the military on how to conduct spying without implicating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches. - crz crztalk 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Concerns of the original nomination have now been met. Definitely a notable subject. --- RockMFR 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per crz. Delete unless expanded. Wikisource can take the document. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't tell us why this government document is more notable than any other random government document on intelligence gathering. There's no mention of any third party coverage, either. Sandstein 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) -- Redirect per crz. Sandstein 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there's a lot of internet attention on this from various kooks and conspiracy theorists and ACLU types... - crz crztalk 15:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Here's an article about various SIGINT things including our directive. - crz crztalk 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I figured out what I want to do with this: Information is already contained in National Security Agency, Redirect there. - crz crztalk 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, this makes sense. It can have its article if it gets some non-trivial, non-kook coverage. Sandstein 17:53, 22 November 2006 (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.