Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeper cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleeper cell

Sleeper cell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is unsourced, and most content appears to be OR. Recommend delete and redirect to Sleeper_agent Dchall1 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge any sourcable content to sleeper agent then copy the content of and redirect sleeper cell (disambiguation) to sleeper cell.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sleeper cell is used by the media in mainly in terrorism contexts whereas sleeper agent is more espionage related. Joshdboz 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - I agree with HisSpaceResearch..--Cometstyles 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just needs some sourcing so it's not OR; "sleeper cell" is one of those phrases whose meaning out of context isn't obvious. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, sleeper cells are a significant part of terrorist strategy, and an article is appropriate for any encylopedia in 2007. Mandsford 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that it's a real term, but when it comes down to it, a sleeper cell is a collection of sleeper agents. All the relevant material is covered under that article, while all but the introductory sentence of Sleeper cell is the author's opinion on strategy. Dchall1 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Firstly, I disagree that a sleeper cell is just a collection of sleeper agents. I think it's way more complicated than that, and that this is a perfectly valid encyclopedia topic. But regardless, that's a merge discussion and AFD is not the place for it. Secondly, just because a stub "Needs improvement" or "contains some OR" are not valid reasons for deletion at all. This indeed needs a lot of work. Deletion doesn't solve anything here. --JayHenry 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect -- patent OR. BYT 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The hive mind tells me that wikipedia is a pile of shit
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.