Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of us secret agencies

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names of us secret agencies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what do with this article, but I think this information might be available elsewhere. Also, I'm citing WP:IINFO. elektrik SHOOS 08:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as most of them aren't "secret agencies". As far as I know, technically the only current "secret agency" is the United States Secret Service, and that's why there isn't a List of US secret agencies already. This is essentially redundant to List of United States federal agencies. Claritas § 09:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above there is already a list for these. Besides I have heard of most of them and since I am not a government insider they are probably not all that secret. But the editor should be encouraged to keep contributing to WP, IMO articles are more needed than lists. How about writing an article explaining one of these agencies, if it doesn't have one already? Wolfview (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Claritas and Wolfview. The article seems like it is trying to be about something like United States Intelligence Community, but the title of this article is not a plausible redirect to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy delete: unreferenced and redundant... possibly OR. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.