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 redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASIO File (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There is already an article about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and this article just serves as a coatrack for weakly related conspiracy theories, speculation, synthesised conclusions and original research. I suggest merge, delete and redirect to the main ASIO article. Papa November (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which is the way it was until some IP reverted it. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article seems to be well-sourced. I don't see a superfluity of conspiracy theories etc. As discussed on its talk page it could do with some pruning. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - none of the content is worth keeping. The ASIO article should discuss the agency's history of tracking people, including the appropriate and inappropriate cases (ASIO's entire job is to keep files on people and organisations believed to be a security risk - the issue is how it's gone about this at times rather than the files themselves). Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, any controversy about agency practices belongs in the ASIO article, not in an article called "ASIO file". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It needs some work but I see no reason to delete, redirect or merge. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nick-D. Any sourced, relevant and encyclopedic material should be merged to ASIO. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. A section on the contents and appearance of the files is certainly valid in that article, but this article is too narrow in focus and looks like soapboxing to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:08, 28 June 2009 (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.