Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raw intelligence

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. Per changes made to article since nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raw intelligence

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

Short and simple; Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. If the article can be expanded to be an elaboration on term as opposed to just a definition, I would be willing to reconsider this nomination. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided, that is, the article could be more fleshed out as per Wikipedia standards.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect I actually created this by accident, if you check the history, when trying to post a talk page discussion about where the term should be redirected to. I'm thinking perhaps we could redirect it to Espionage#Methods_and_terminology and make a note about the term there? I'm just not sure if another article might be more appropriate. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It is one sentence long. Espionage is fine. Or put into draft space until it is fleshed out. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Let's put this factoid into another article, and add a redirect to there. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICTDEF fail. Or in this case - Wikipedia is not a FBI terminology glossary. Could be merged elsewhere. Could be expanded (beyond FBI specific scope). But as long as it is a one-line long FBI glossary term - it's a delete.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Struck !vote per modification below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term is widely used, it is used by the CIA and FBI, but not anywhere else. However it could be redirected to Research and Analysis Wing. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant concept in such affairs and it's easy to find sources such as:

So, what we have here is a raw article – a stub. Per WP:DICDEF, these are commonly confused with dictionary entries and that policy explains how to tell the difference. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect This is a DICDEF, which can easily be covered in the article suggested above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, as above, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have made a start on expanding the page so that the DICDEF issue is no longer relevant. @SamHolt6: is invited to please reconsider their nomination, as they suggested. Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D.'s WP:HEY. Present article content and sourcinge establish notability, and DICTDEF has been addressed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now a real article, passes the WP:GNG, and is not just a definition. Dream Focus 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Andrew D. has greatly improved the article. Neutrality^talk 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no longer a dictionary definition and notable enough to meet GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:51, 5 March 2018 (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.