Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final option

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final option

• Delete. I'm not certain, but I lean towards deletion on this. Thought I'd err on the side of AfD, since that'll open it up to consensus. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient context, merge content to an appropriate article on counterterrorism or the event described. SM247 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad for an old movie. Tychocat 07:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, dreadful article but could conceivably be expanded into a discussion of the final step in police/counter-terror activity... but unless that happens quickly or someone comes up with a good redirect target... delete. - Motor (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there's no way this is a formal or specific enough term to make an encyclopedic article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - as the only contributor has blanked the article in this revision [1] BigDT 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, I believe this fits G5, since he blanked the page. --Terence Ong 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've unblanked the article. I'd like to give the editor who created it a chance to improve it. - Motor (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep With some cleanup, expansion, and attention, I think it could be expanded into a very useful article. At the moment it focuses on one incident related to terrorism, but I have heard it used in other contexts, and it is more or less a general law enforcement term. It definately needs expanding, but it is worth keeping. ONUnicorn 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the article is almost content-free, pretty much all the content it has is false other than a dicdef, and it is hard to see how it could ever be improved. Redirect to Who Dares Wins (film) (which is nothing to do with the incident described, but was indeed called Final Option in the US). --Guinnog 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do as you like. Delete or keep. But DO NOT say the content is false without explaining. Also, if you cannot see how the film Who Dares Wins, AKA The Final Option, illustrates the term, or do not believe that it was inspired by Operation Nimrod then perhaps you are unqualified to comment. As for content, there wil never be any if it is deleted. I thought the entire point of this obviously anal site is improvement through open contributions. Once again, do as you like. It obviously means more to you than to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianb0806 (talk • contribs)

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.