Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bletchley Park Cipher


 * 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 Bletchley Park. As an alternative to merge given that there is no sourced content to merge. Sam Walton (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Bletchley Park Cipher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable cipher. Article appears to be based on the author's original research. No claim of significance. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, or at least merge into Bletchley_Park. There is not enough here to stand alone as a separate article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as suggested as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister   talk  07:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect to Bletchley Park. Insufficient coverage to have a separate article, and it's not an entirely unreasonable search term. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DElete -- too NN to be worth an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.