Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Service codenames

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service codenames

Secret Service codenames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not notable and no WP:RS, Contested Prod DXRAW 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Perhaps the article could be better sourced, but it is useful information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Improve the article, but don't delete it. Johnn 7 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful to have this data in one place, though it needs to be linked and catted so people can actually find it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• 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. JavaTenor 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:USEFUL is not a valid criterion for inclusion. Otto4711 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic , IMO, and now sourced by recent edits. A Train ^{take the} 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The source that is being used lists a TV Program codename for Queen Elizabeth II That shows how it does not pass WP:RS 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. Johnn 7 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The point i'm trying to make is that it the sources is incorrect and thus should be removed leaving something which is unsourced and also thus leaving nothing there so in a nutshell there is no article. DXRAW 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but not per nom. This is at the moment just a list, and not a useful source of information on things such as how the codenames are given or when they are given. However, I am certain that a point like "some of the information in this article is wrong" isn't a reason to delete it, as that's not what WP:RS says. It says that reliable sources must be found. So ignore the WP:RS part of the prod nomination. Wittyname 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand it. It could be a useful and interesting list. Kolindigo 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a list, but a list is valid WP content (as opposed to WP:NOT#IINFO). The topic itself ("why is this information collected together?") here isn't OR (I just added some more cites that Secret Service actually does codenames, not just a Hollywood construct) and the scope is explicit and well-defined. DMacks 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ...but rename/move. On further thought, if this is primarily a list page (as opposed to a page about Secret Service operations that happens to include some examples), it should probably be named List of Secret Service codenames. DMacks 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• 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. --UsaSatsui 10:13, 27 February 2007 (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.