Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive Order 12333

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 Speedy Kept nominator withdrew --JAranda | watz sup 01:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Order 12333

Based on the new edit, which quadrubples the length of this article, I withdraw the nomination. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)This article Executive Order 12333 belongs in the wiki-dictionary, not encyclopedic. Joaquin Murietta 08:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, or perhaps merge into War on Terrorism. Definitely notable and encyclopedic. - Sensor 13:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep
  • Disclaimer #1, I started this article.
  • Disclaimer #2, User:Joaquin Murietta has made a habit of nominating articles I start for deletion. They also follow around the articles I edit, and make unexplained excisions of my contributions, that seem indistinguishable from vandalism to me.
  • This executive order is as significant as any of the others in the List of United States federal executive orders.
  • Reinterpretation of this Executive Order was necessary for President George W. Bush to order the targetted killing (ie assassination) of leading terrorists. That makes this EO notable. -- Geo Swan 14:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Looks notable and encyclopedaic to me. Dlyons493 Talk 14:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Bad faith nom per Geo Swan. --JJay 15:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

BEfore (or in this case after)you accuse me of bad faith, here is the original edit, before you posted:

Executive Order 12333 extends the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies and directs the leaders of other US federal agencies to co-operate fully with CIA requests for information.

I will make further comments on your talk page. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy and strong keep, I hate stalkers. --Striver 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Your hatred is duly noted, but why not take a look at my edits to Ali Ahmad Said?Joaquin Murietta 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done to the person who rewrote the article which was worthy of consideration in this forum in its original state. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that the article has been re-written. Sliggy 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep As notable and encyclopaedic as every other article in List of United States federal executive orders. Why did the nominator single this particular one out? The short length of an article is not a valid AfD criterion in itself. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - any directive from the President of the U.S. that "extends the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies" is inherently notable. Furthermore, executive orders are generally notable, and I'd therefore be willing to let a questionable case stand as an article for the sake of Wikipedia having a complete record of these devices. BD2412 T 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Preaky 01:31, 6 November 2005 (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.