Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard Form 312


 * 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 merge to Classified information in the United States. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Standard Form 312

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't see how this topic meets WP:NOTABILITY, despite trying. It has been tagged for notability for 12 years. It exists, but I can't see any justification for an article. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  08:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Classified information in the United States, as this form appears to be a critical step in obtaining security clearances under U.S. procedures. Alternately (or additionally) merge to Executive Order 13292 that apparently caused the form to be created in the first place. Either article definitely meets notability guidelines, and would benefit from a mention of this form even if it's reduced to just a sentence or two. Paradox  society  09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge The U.S. security classification system and its use or abuse have been the subject of numerous articles and books and whistleblowers and non-disclosure agreement in general have also been important topics of public policy discussion. This form is a major component of the secrecy system for good or ill. Classified information in the United States is already a very long article. Adding the content of this article with a redirect from its title wouldn't do much harm but I don't see any benefit either. We have many subject areas where small aspects are pared off into their own article, which tends to keep things more manageable.--agr (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, but where are the sources that discuss the significance of this form? what i see at the moment is an article that confirms that the form exists, not enough to meet notability guidelines. Similar situation with Standard Form 86, Standard Form 50. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:14, 23 May 2020 (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.