Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open source intelligence

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 of the debate was expedited keep, not a single person currently supports deletion, including nominator. --Michael Snow 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open source intelligence

This is potentially going to be a controversial move on my part, but honestly, this article reads like an essay and most likely is one. However, I could be wrong, so asking the community for their take. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC) I agree. An organization put out a very confused press release inviting people to write stuff around this.--Jimbo Wales 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The weird press release to which Jimbo refers is here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

now there's also this: Discover, disciminate, distill, and disseminate --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Comment And now also the soapbox-like Global coverage. Oldelpaso 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup Keep, with continuing cleanup, if not cleaned then delete. I've read this, top to toe. I am forming my view from the essay nature of the article, and not from the content, much of which seems to range from notable to highly notable. That it has a nice tone of prose is not a reason to have it here. It would benefit from brevity (as would this comment!). A substantial précis would help it no end. I do see the nom in the wiki spirit. Being bold can sometimes feel "very bold" indeed. Peer review can only help either the article or wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I see good evidence of a cleanup. I would like to see more. Parts still have an essay and soapbox feel, and thus feel POV. However I see enough work done to limit my comments to the "cleanup". I stay neutral for the moment on keep versus delete. Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Moved opinion to "keep" (see above). Much work remains, and POV still exists, but it has moved sufficiently. It does need to move some more. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup Open source intelligence is a valid information science concept and is in regular usage in UK Government information services/libraries. This article needs to be thoroughly reworked in order to draw out the implications of the term.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is a lot of interesting information here but it isn't NPOV. --Ideogram 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the references are from http://www.oss.net, and nearly all of them are primary sources, not secondary sources. ~MDD4696 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this could be expanded to an encyclopedic article with NPOV. --Pboyd04 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup this page was moderately useful until Robert Steele (a self-proclaimed "expert" in open source intelligence) ruined it with his tired rantings and a great deal of incorrect information. -- OSINT

• Keep and cleanup per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and expand Deleted inappropriate comments OBE. There is a WAR going on, between the secret intelligence world and the open source intelligence world. I will tell you this just once: either you get serious and take this seriously, or I write off Wikipedia as a potential earth saver. SIGNED: Robert David Steele, CEO, OSS.Net, Inc. (bear@oss.net) PS: Have you considered the possibility that the one man on the planet that has gathered, over 18 years, 7,500 participants, 600 speakers, and 30,000 pages on this topic just might possibly know what is going on in this arena? PLEASE! I will be at Wikipedia in Boston. Talk to me then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bear@oss.net (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Robert Steele 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment This is an encyclopedia, not an attempt to save the world. Ideogram 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• LearnYes, but is it possible that knowledge, broadly shared, will save the world? Wikipedia can go in one of two directions: it can enlighten, or it can allow the neanderthols to *impress* upon it their outdated views. With all due respect, this is about who gets to decide: the people, or the bureaucracts.... your call.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear@oss.net (talk • contribs)
  • Actually, its about what goes into an enclyclopaedia. Saving the world happens in a different place. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Factual Errors, Needs Balance: it is my habit not to get involved in this sort of argument but as this article mentions me by name allow me to point out at least two errors. I was the Staff Director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence but I served under Chairman Larry Combest (R-TX), 1995-97, not under Dave McCurdy for those earlier dates. The staff study mentioned, IC21, was written in 1995-96 under different circumstances and with different conclusions than described. I would add that the description of the so-called Burundi exercise is not entirely accurate and does not comport entirely with the views of the Aspin-Brown staff. This is piece as it currently stands is more polemical than informative. It needs to be toned down and it needs balance. OSINT is not some sort of Manichean struggle. (signed) Mark Lowenthal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.36.211 (talk • contribs)
• Keep and cleanup A valid article subject, but the content has been severely botched. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and caution the individuals who try to use this article, which clearly is about an encyclopedic topic, as a soapbox. The latter is probably due to this request by a political interest group to use this article as an opinion outlet. Still, these people could become useful contributors once they learn Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc. Sandstein 07:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, caution notes, and expand participation. Lowenthal is correct to point out the inadvertent error, which I will correct now. More helpful would have been an actual entry adding to the group knowledge. The caution is noted, and should be extended to Alan Simpson, who is a spiteful blow-hard, and the CIA folks, who cannot stand having the truth about the inadequacy of their program pointed out. While Lowenthal is not correct on the Burundi exercise, and it was a major factor in getting the Open Source Agency into the 9-11 report, I am quite happy to move strongly away from "soapbox." My intent in not creating my own wiki at oss.net as I was asked to do, and instead pointing to the wikipedia, was precisely to engage as many people as possible in the sharing of knowledge through the wikipedia idea. I will be at the wikipedia conference in Boston in early August and would be very glad to participate in an offline session about how to make this more useful and less conflicted. It would be great to make it a special project with a moderating super-editor (not me) who can lock in truthful statements subject to repeated deletions by spiteful antagonists, and who can block untruths or other sidebars as necessary. I found it quite shocking to have all the references deleted simply because they were primary. Isn't that what knowledge is about? I have spent 18 years advocating open source intelligence in support of public policy, and I can tell you it has been a sacrifice, not a joy ride. I actively solicit group help in wikifying the page, in expanding the table of contents, and in identifying and blocking people who delete useful information out of spite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Steele (talk • contribs) .

• will now focus on getting others to contribute. This process worked, IMHO. I hope I have been diligent in complying with the standards and protocols. I hope the group will protect this article from wanton deletions by OSINT, who does not care to reveal his identity. between now and meeting in Boston, I am going to focus on getting others to contribute. Robert Steele 18:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• have cleaned up and created link pages for all names, complied with guidance on corporate notability, being careful with bios. Really appreciate being mentored. Responding to any ((fact)) or other editorial ticklers. I hope we meet in Boston. Robert Steele 17:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Edit, if not edited, keep. I think there is definitely a demand for a thorough article on Open Source Intelligence, and the current one is at the very least a good start. With the aid of the OSINT professionals from all over the world this could grow into something really good. Simply deleting without notice or arguments, or using abusive language, or adding unsigned comments, will not help very much though. --Reuser 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• done all I could, thanks for help. I am ready to modify or delete anything that does not pass the smell test. I certainly apologize if Global Coverage sounds like soapbox, but with three books on the subject of intelligence andinformation operations I thought it rather pertinent. I would be glad to try my hands at a precis. Thrilled to see impact of others on getting this right. Robert Steele 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• shortened by pulling the eight tribes off the main page and making them sub-pages open to more inputs from others. Robert Steele 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, that an article needs cleanup is not reason enough to delete it. --Pmsyyz 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup Interesting article which needs some work Sjc 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• more work will be done today Hugh power outage in Northern Virginia, set me back. Today after I clean up the fallen tree limbs I will create sub-pages for the communities of interest (less escoteric term than "tribes" and will add example and external links across the board. Guided by this group (which has been a very constructive process, thank you) I have wikified and now understand the architecture of many small paragraphs creating a structure that supports a summary page. So I have now created a process sub-structure (will do this last), a community of interest sub-structure, and a sources, softwares, and services substructure. This will allow examples to be listed as external links at the bottom most pages. More later. Robert Steele 13:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• mobilizing help I have posted a request for assistance to the community page, and will do a press release inviting the folks in my world to contribute, with a short list of wiki rules to get them off on the right foot. I will monitor this page and the sub-pages and seek to ensure compliance with wiki rules. Robert Steele 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Revert to mid or early June and refer the reader to the 30,000 pages of material on oss.net and/or to the Robert David Steele biography and let it go at that. Then insist that new material be fact-based on not just based on Mr. Steele's voluminous ideas. Mr. Steele clearly needs to realize that he needs to get other people to talk and write about his ideas before they are notable enough to get into Wikipedia - otherwise, maybe it is all just in his own mind. He does have an NNDB entry but his three books are by his own press: OSS International Press. He is widely published in articles in major magazines like TIME and Forbes - so he is no crackpot. This is a common problem: his huge web site full of his personal ideas has no place at Wikipedia. What other people say about him and his ideas might have a place at Wikipedia. Beyond that, it should be restricted to just the facts about his life. -- 75.24.104.254 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• sigh--tired of mean-spirits I have done a press release seeking to get the 7,500 people that have attended the annual OSINT conference to make contributions. I have worked VERY HARD to make this about OSINT and to avoid references to me or my web site, but the sorry fact, however mean-spirited a handful of critics might wish to be, is that the HISTORY of OSINT would not exist if I had not, at great personal sacrifice, lost money on each of those annual conferences, and taken the trouble to digitize the contributions from 1992-date. I am ready to do whatever it takes to satisfy the Wiki process and to attract OTHERS to contribute, and I am most grateful to the organizers for blocking the individual that was doing repetitive deletions out of spite. An individual that chooses to remain anonymous, I might add.

NOTE: If the delete notice could be removed, it would at least not DISCOURAGE new entries by OTHERS. My press release should result in at least 100 potential new international contributors, and many of them, if they see the delete notice, will choose not to waste their valuable time.

With best wishes, Robert Robert Steele 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I've posted a note to your talk page, however I'd like to reiterate that we aren't really what you are looking for. We aren't a site where you can just edit willy-nilly, though the press might lead you to believe otherwise. As has been pointed out to you by many, many editors, there are site policies with which we expect contributors to read and bear in mind when they add material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not there for anyone's essays or boosting of a particular topic. You must write with the site policies in mind! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

trying to focus, question I am earnestly trying to focus on the Wiki way. I considered creating a whole series of quotes from the 600 folks that have spoken at my conference, but thought that the constant leads to my web site were not appropriate. I agree with the person who says joint point at my web site (as the master page does) but the whole point of what I have tried to do with the sub-structure for OSINT is to set the stage for OTHERS to contribute. Am going to go passive now and wait to learn more at the Wiki conference. It would help if the delete notice could be removed, and the master page could be "locked down" or at least blocked from CIA deletions--they HATE having me point out the fact that for 18 years they refused to pay attention to this, and now they have one young man with $5M to spend, when we should have someone of the stature of the Librarian of Congress, with $500M on the way to $1.5B to spend--simply trying to put all this in context. I will immediately comply with any guidance from the group between now and Boston. 68.227.195.23 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Robert Steele 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

THANKS to whoever cleaned this up. Super! Sushi on me in Boston! 68.227.195.23 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Robert Steele 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

have images to sharenot sure how to share images. I created them and they are on my web site, I normally would NOT seek to load images to keep my footprint down, but there are at least three that can be considered relevant to this article. Plan to do nothing unless invited. Can someone finally kill the delete box and we can revert to discussion page? Robert Steele 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

24 images are available for viewing at OSINT and IO Images. I do not know enough to select and upload. I am planning to wait until after Wiki conference before trying to become more active. Thanks to all who stabilized this. Robert Steele 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but ban Robert Steele from editing the article directly. His input is valuable, but his POV shines through. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can't ban anyone from editing just one article, it's just not in our software. -- Zanimum

• Keep; clean up. The term and concept are relatively widely used (a google search confirms thousands of mainstream-media sources). --Delirium 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Steele Stands Back I've just talked with your President, we will do a press release retracting or modifying my call for inputs, I have changed my web site to stiff vendors, and I will wait to learn more in Boston. This is my last entry here. Best wishes to all of you.Robert Steele 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You know I fear there are misassumptions here. The organisation behind the wikipedia phenomenon assuredly has a president (or similar role). But it appears to me as a relatively new editor here that he exercises the same rights here as any other editor. "We" thus do not have a president, because "we" are all autonomous editors, some of whom have (for example) rights to administer the project. Thus we have organised chaos, if you will. Based upon assuming good faith the wikipedia phenomenon has grown and is widely respected. As an entity it is not manipulable. This AfD nomination is a case in point. An article that was in a parlous state was nominated. It has been substantially cleaned up. At the end of the period of the nomination a decision will be reached. The article should not be a soapbox. It needs to end up flat, neutral and factual. In that way the nominator will have done us all a service, as will those who worked on the article. Fiddle Faddle 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think what he means in that he talked to Jimbo on the phone and straightened out what is and is not encyclopedic. Hey, try this on for size: "Wikipedia is not a call to action, except for building a general encyclopedia." I guess the "soapbox" clause covers that. I think that that rest of Mr. Steele's agenda might be better suited for Wikia or something like that. He is obviously looking to network with other people about his area of expertise. Clearly, he is politically adept and is not going to make a nuisance of himself at Wikimania 2006. -- 67.121.114.153 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't you just hate it when people think they have rank and try to pull it? Mr Steele is doing himself no good in my eyes. I support retention of the article, but by no means in its current form. The topic is notable. Even the fact of the soapbox is notable. But the article is execrable. At the end of this AfD we need a diligent editing process to finish stripping out the POV and uncited stuff, to look at the articles it has spawned and do the same task, and maybe even AfD some of those if they exhibit the same POV tendencies. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 6 July 2006 (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.