Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeper cell (disambiguation)

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. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper cell (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page contains only two valid entries and one is the primary topic. Per WP:TWODABS I've added hatnotes to each of the articles and there is no longer any reason for there to be a disambiguation page. Nick Number (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 21. Snotbot t • c » 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sleeper agent is linked from clandestine cell system. This seems like it should be uncontroversial; G6 may have been more appropriate. —rybec 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sleeper Cell" is the commonly used term, therefore it is really confusing for users to go through more than one link. I don't know if there's a solution, but Clandestine Cell System is a really confusing name, sleeper agent is often what users searching "Sleeper Cell" are looking for. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it can also be a kind of cancer stem cell, see this NY Times article, or just research it online. See also WP:BITE and take off your blinders. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a commonly-used term? The word "sleeper" doesn't appear anywhere in the stem cell or cancer stem cell articles, nor in the body of the NYT Magazine article you linked. It looks like the author chose to use wordplay in order to have a catchier title. It doesn't seem likely that people would go to the Wikipedia article for "sleeper cell" solely based on that.

Furthermore, in regard to your last sentence, what are you talking about? What newcomers are being bitten, and by whom? And who's wearing blinders? Nick Number (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with this, I was wondering who was being nasty. Turns out no one... who is User:Bearian? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian is an admin who has been an editor for over 7 years. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is that (a) there are many possible sources online (see the links for Google news and scholar above) that describe more than one meaning for "sleeper cell", (b) some newbies have worked on this article, and it would be nice to them to keep their work unless it harms Wikipedia, and (c) think outside the box - the English language can have many meanings for a word or phrase - that is why we have "dab" (disambiguation) pages. However, it's just a dab page, so don't get stressed out or insulted about whether it's deleted or not. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the utility of diambiguation pages, and I have a fair amount of experience in working with them. However, in the absence of any other meanings which could reasonably be a source of confusion, I don't believe that this one serves any useful purpose right now. Nick Number (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made some improvements, and it's a clear keep. The cancer cell entry is currently dubious, as the phrase 'sleeper cell' isn't mentioned in that article, but I didn't remove it. Even without that entry, it still meets criteria. Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After that improvement I definitely say Keep as well. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Boleyn's entries are notable and merit keeping the dab. Nick Number (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2013 (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.