Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA HTTP cookies controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 discussion closed for now without prejudice. This discussion is unlikely to end with any consensus. The Deletion review on Daniel Brandt still is ongoing and we will see much more clearly our options afterwards. And waiting a bit for things to cool down on the subject can't hurt. I suggest this article to be re nominated in a week or so, there is no hurry. -- lucasbfr talk 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA HTTP cookies controversy

CIA HTTP cookies controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was created after the mess with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). It really isn't a meaningful topic. It was a news story ... probably an overblown one at that. It isn't that big of a deal - virtually every website stores cookies and there is nothing evil about them. It makes for nice sensationalist news - "did you know that the big evil government is spying on you", but Wikipedia, Walmart, Amazon, and just about everywhere anyone would want to go stores cookies. A Wikinews article on the subject would have been appropriate, but not an encyclopedia article. To put it plainly, there is no room whatsoever for expansion - this article is a stub today and can never be anything other than a stub ... because it is nothing other than a news story. BigDT 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I concur with the nominator. This was a slow day news story. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This almost seems to be stretching the definition of "controversy." eaolson 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to call for deletion or keeping but rather a) strongly suggest that we wait until the Brandt DRV is complete and b) point out that the deletion of this would likely destroy the spirit of the attempted compromise in any event. JoshuaZ 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless of whether the Brandt DRV is upheld or overturned, there shouldn't be an article on this topic - it's a news story that will never be more than a stub. --BigDT 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This story is not notable enough to deserve its own article. It's not even notable enough to deserve mention in the HTTP cookie or CIA articles. The only place I can think of where it could be worth mention is Daniel Brandt. If that article is deleted, there's no point in keeping this one. --Itub 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep for now, given the claim that the AfD was a compromise, we should consider all the resulting articles together as a group in which case this should be be kept. At worst it should be merged to some larger article about either CIA scandals or internet privacy issues. JoshuaZ 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Give it some time. There is a WP:DRV on Daniel Brandt, I think we should wait that process to be over before deleting forks. -- lucasbfr talk 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What was it, the slowest news day ever? "MAN FINDS TECHNICAL ERROR IN WEBSITE, NATION PANICS!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now* I agree, wait until the DRV is over to start this up. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless the information is restored to its most logical home, the Daniel Brandt article. The article was created as part of a compromise closing of one of the most hotly contested AfD's ever. The compromise involved nuking the article that many of us thought should have been kept. The stated rationale was that our concerns were met because all the information was preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. (It wasn't, but I recognize that at least an effort was made.) Then there's an immediate attempt to remove some of the information? Come on. This AfD must be considered in context, even if such an article wouldn't have been kept had it been generated in other circumstances. JamesMLane t c 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, unless elsewhere in Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, Daniel Brandt) and linked to. This has four sources and is clearly significant; nor is this is in any rational way BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "Clearly significant" in what way? It's a news story - not every news story needs to have an encyclopedia article. I won a chess tournament when I was a kid and got interviewed by the newspaper. There certainly isn't an article on BigDT's chess championship. --BigDT 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with... Oh, wait. Normally, I would support this being merged with Daniel Brandt or deleted. However, this was created after it was decided that, for some reason, the information on Daniel Brandt had to be spread around the encyclopedia. If this is deleted, we are losing valuable information. Of course, it would be better if all of this was merged, but, alas, it seems that that is not to be. Therefore, strong keep. J Milburn 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete yes it has 4 sources; 4 sources that don't in any way make a case for this being a notable or significant event. It wouldn't exist if it were not for the Daniel Brandt article deletion and keeping an article on a drearily unimportant event just because there is no Brandt article to house it in is no reason to keep at all.--Isotope23 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Normally, I would be advocating a merge here-but the logical target for that merge is a protected redirect. (As of this writing, anyway.) Given that, I see no choice but to keep, at least for now and while that settles out. Hopefully something logical can be found to move it to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep until the DRV is decided. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What difference does the DRV make? If the deletion/redirect/whatever is overturned, this article will need to be deleted. If the deletion/redirect/whatever is endorsed, this article will still be completely non-notable and useless and needs to be deleted too. In any case, this information will remain in the Brandt history in case someone want to rescue it for some other article. --Itub 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is relevant because it will also pollute the DRV. The article just got created as a result of the AfD, and this AfD is under investigation. Deleting it now will raise a lot of "Overturn, the merge announced got deleted afterwards". Giving it a grace period of a few days will separate both issues. -- lucasbfr talk 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It's likely that, if the closing is endorsed on DRV, then the deletionist side will want the Brandt history expunged. JamesMLane t c 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge with a relevant article, say Timeline of internet privacy issues (which is probably a redlink, but you get the idea) It's short, it's probably not likely to grow, but it would make a good section in another article and should be merged rather than deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I was typing up a long rant about why this crap should be deleted, then I recalled that we have Internet privacy, which seems like it might be a pretty good destination for this. However, I'm not sure we even have to keep this article for GFDL reasons. This was copied and pasted from the Daniel Brandt article and that's where the author information is - I recommend just copy/paste from that history and we don't even have to bother keeping this as an unlikely search term redirect. --- RockMFR 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Close without decision - let the dust settle before poking the hornet's nest anymore. WilyD 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. on practical grounds; how can we even talk about this sensibly until the DB article decision, It was not a good idea to nominate it now, because of the ensuing confusion. It looks a little like WP: Point. . DGG 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete storm in a teacup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:10, 15 June 2007 (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.