Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

• Comment restoring earlier text with was blanked by nominator. Fan1967 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing Orphaned AfD, tagged by anon IP 67.98.154.35 (talk · contribs) with the notes: "Article too long, speculative, and point of view." and "This article should be reviewed for deletion. It is not written with just the facts. It is consummed with media speculation and second-guessing." No vote. Fan1967 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View, not balanced, and length are major violations of rules here. Keep a lid on your personal bias when contributing material to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

• Keep. None of this is reason to delete, even if arguendo true. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Speedy if possible. Clearly encyclepedic content Ydam 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speedy if possible. This article violates all of Wikipedia's requirements for an article to stay. It lacks Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Keeping this article hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. The entire content, from title to external links, reeks with bias and should be deleted inspite of its newsiness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

These are not reasons for deleting an article they are reasons for improving it! (Well in this particular case, at least, they are)Ydam 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If newspapers don't count as sources, we'd have to wipe out half of Wikipedia. Fan1967 17:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good thing. People want facts, not editorials when coming to an "encyclopedia".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

It is customary to present your arguments on the article's Talk page when tagging it. You haven't done this yet. Metarhyme 07:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If there are POV issues, they should be dealt with in the article. Claims of Original Research or unverifiability are, quite frankly, ludicrous when discussing an issue that has been on the front page of every newspaper in the US. Fan1967 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• After seeing nominator's arguments, change vote to Speedy Keep. Fan1967 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep as bad faith nom by 67.98.154.35 (talk · contribs). Шизомби 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is nonsense. Have you seen the article. It is obvious it is slanted. Check out it's Discussion. It has major problems.67.98.154.35 (talk · contribs).

• Keep. Speedy if possible. This ariticle as minimal POV issues, all of which should easily be fixed, it is an excellent resource regarding the issue. If an objective article as POV issues becuase the facts are critical of an entity, the issue is not POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.52.68 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. This article should be a good example of what WP can be with multiple editors on a difficult issue. Whether it is or not is an item for cleanup, not AfD. -Jcbarr 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep (*sigh*) & Clean Up - If the newspaper reports and media leaks are true, I am opposed to this program. However, this is an encyclopedia. There are so many problems with this article including rampant POV (both overt and subtly nuanced), soapboxing, credibility of certain sources, not to mention the fact that NOBODY outside the NSA knows ANY FACTS ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT!! This article merely repeats speculation and endless analysis of that speculation!!! It's not encyclopedic. The controversy is important but it is handled very badly in this present article. Now, having said all that, these aren't in and of themselves, reasons to delete.--WilliamThweatt 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't believe it, I think you could do an excellent section on why reporters should be thrown in jail. I know you ignored the invitation last time I presented it, but I ask you to reconsider, for balance. I can't do it. Metarhyme 07:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" Very informative for me as a high school student reporting on the wiretapping issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.233.2 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Keep - 67.98.154.35 (talk · contribs) is clearly trying to discredit this particular article based solely on political purposes by flagging it for deletion, as per his/her/its comments: "a source for Democrat talking points". (Refer to 68.115.52.68's comment above - a very valid point indeed.) 12.18.80.40 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perfect example of bad faith AfD. The advanced problems should not be remedied through this kind of forum, the article needs improvement, not deletion. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I can't believe this article was nominated for deletion. As far as I can tell, the only person advocating the deletion is some Anon user who is almost certainly little more than a neoconservative shill with little in the way of insightful reasoning as to why this article deserves to be deleted. Here's a clue: not much is known about the NSA wiretapping, other than the fact that it is indeed going on, because the NSA does a great job of covering its tracks. With that said, the article does a good job of summing up what's known. Please remove the unsightly AfD banner from the article if no one can come up with a real reason why it should be deleted. Schmiddy 23:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep it from being a "he said, she said, he said" type of page. Summaries of arguements are good here. GChriss 01:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I too can not believe this article was nominated for deletion. This issue is still developing, and I see nothing but neutral descriptive content in it as journalism or historical writing should aspire to be. I'm not logged in, but I am David C. Manchester and worked hard converting many pdf's related to this issue and put them on a site [(http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html)] listed in the external links section, so I can't pretend I have no effort invested here. Even so, this article should most emphatically NOT be deleted, as most of the historical record of this issue is yet to unfold. As to length, there is no "right" length in my opinion. I think whatever length necessary for a full and complete neutral description is the proper one, whether it be 300 or 30,000 words. Organisation is the important thing. Is is navigable with tags organised conveniently? Are related articles linked in a convenient way? And so forth. As to legal analysis, I'm not qualified to give one, but the same guidelines I would think would apply as to the NPOV required of the narrative timeline text. That is, an analysis inclusive of relevant precedent and case law, and not a particular legal opinion - a summary of issues at hand, not an opinion. Any indications or probable ways the thing could resolve, should be included - as links to separate articles - and clearly labeled analytical *opinion*. That's my 2 cents. It's a good article, neutral, descriptive, and offers value to researchers, historians, and citizens trying to figure out how to deal with this question of balance between executive authority under the color of national security and civil libeties slip-sliding away. Keep it. -dcm
• Keep and Clean Up This idea behind this article is very suitable for Wikipedia...whether it is NPOV or Wikified or whatever isn't a reason for its deletion, but for future revision of the article. --Tim4christ17 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Petri Krohn 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why reduced what Wiki covers with no solid reason to? --Falcorian ^(talk) 08:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy KEEP. I see no reason why to delete such an important topic. Nominator must be politically charged. Theonlyedge 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs clean up, but no reason to erase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.5.21 (talk • contribs)