Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliamentary military security department, No.2 (P.M.S.2)


 * 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. Does not appear to be a hoax, after all. Jafeluv (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary military security department, No.2 (P.M.S.2)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Somewhat tentatively, I am nominating this as hoax because of the paucity of Google hits. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unless supported with sources. Hoax or not, this is unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I draw your attention to WP:GOOGLEHITS: A paucity of Google hits does not make the article a hoax. I did some searches myself, and came up with this article, which confirms what the article says (and is almost certainly its major source). All the facts in the article seem to check out. The article just needs a little wiki-love. And an editor to add some references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's confirmed (broadly) in Christopher Andrew's Defence of the Realm (2010 pb. ed, pp. 96-97) - "Macassey's reports [of saboteurs] prompted the Ministry of Munitions to found an intelligence service of its own, later known as PMS2. In February 1916 Kell provided the Ministry with a nucleus of MI5 officers [...] In April 1917, the administrative staff of the out-of-favour PMS2 were formally 'reabsorbed' by MI5." I can't confirm the accuracy of the specific details, though! Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - department seems real. Google hits should not be used to decide whether an article's subject is real or not; otherwise half the subjects of knowledge unrecorded on the net would have to be unwarrantedly deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does appear to have existed. Given the nature of the organisation, it is therefore worthy of an article. Not having Googlehits is irrelevant. Print sources are just as good. Needs to be renamed Parliamentary Military Security Department No.2 (with the capitalisation and without the parenthetical abbreviation and presumably the comma) however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to neutral. Difficult to tell without the rest of the book to look at, but the front page on view does enough to drag it out of the unverified area. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)


 * 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.