Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Service codenames

Keep Perhaps the article could be better sourced, but it is useful information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Improve the article, but don't delete it. Johnn 7 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to have this data in one place, though it needs to be linked and catted so people can actually find it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs better sourcing, but that should be relatively easy to find. Agree with the above two editors - this is useful reference information and it makes sense for it to have its own article. JavaTenor 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:USEFUL is not a valid criterion for inclusion. Otto4711 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic , IMO, and now sourced by recent edits. A Train ^{take the} 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source that is being used lists a TV Program codename for Queen Elizabeth II That shows how it does not pass WP:RS DXRAW 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the discussion here is about whether this is encyclopedic or not. If it is poorly sourced, that should be fixed, but it isn't a critera for deletion. Johnn 7 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]