- 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 delete. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable the panda ₯’ 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
SEXINT
- SEXINT ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems to be based only on one blog post. I can find little to no mention of it in any other sources. Furthermore, other sections of the article seem to indicate the author is engaged in synthesis, as those sections make no mention of the database the article seeks to describe. Parrot of Doom 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The article you linked cites
this media report, written by Gleen Greenwald and others, who have been reviweing the NSA files. It's not just a "blog post". In particular,
this image,
this other and
this are used as a source that indeed the NSA has a database which contain references to "online promiscuity". There are other references in the Wikipedia article too. This is a notable subject which should be included in Wikipedia. The article can be salvaged. --
177.20.130.9 (
talk) 17:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
It appears to meet the general notability guideline. It's been covered by The Huffington Post, Arstechnica, among other
reliable sources.
Tutelary (
talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Arstechnica link has nothing to do with SEXINT. And the Huffington Post article does not contain the word "SEXINT". That can only be found in the blog post.
Parrot
of Doom 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! I made the article partially because multiple other individual programs have articles as well. While not much information is known at the moment, I feel that it is vital to document. As for the sources, as was mentioned the original source is Greenwald who has been the main co-respondent in the Snowden-NSA issue.
Ogma the Scholar (
talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to rename it, but Afd should not be used as article cleanup. If you wanted to discuss moving the article/merging it, that should be done on the talk page. my !vote is to Keep, but rename. to something more suitable. It meets the general notability guideline, per its coverage in reliable sources. Tutelary ( talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! I made the article partially because multiple other individual programs have articles as well. While not much information is known at the moment, I feel that it is vital to document. As for the sources, as was mentioned the original source is Greenwald who has been the main co-respondent in the Snowden-NSA issue.
Ogma the Scholar (
talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Arstechnica link has nothing to do with SEXINT. And the Huffington Post article does not contain the word "SEXINT". That can only be found in the blog post.
Parrot
of Doom 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
It appears to meet the general notability guideline. It's been covered by The Huffington Post, Arstechnica, among other
reliable sources.
Tutelary (
talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The blog shouldn't be used as a source, since it's just a promo blurb that links to a more complete version at http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting . It's still problematic that the word "sexint" only appears in the headline and is found nowhere in the meat of it, which hints at an attempt to make up a new sensational term to encapsulate various NSA behaviors. While those behaviors appear to be sourced reasonably, including the cataloguing of sexual behaviors as potential vulnerabilities, the existence of a specific "SEXINT" database isn't. Maybe the article should be renamed (to what?) or merged with existing NSA database articles. 99.58.57.1 ( talk) 18:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to edit my comment with the following, I'll just post this here: Furthermore after reading the 'Guide to Deletion' (I'm new) I have a couple ideas. It says there are three criteria: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. (also copyright). I'm not sure which specific one this doesn't meet. I would definitely argue that it is verifiable and doesn't contain original research (check out /info/en/?search=Edward_Snowden#Release_of_NSA_documents and /info/en/?search=The_Intercept). As for Neutrality, I would definitely argue it is objective and factual. If this is contested, the best alternative I can offer would be expansion.
- Now to add to it: the post at Standford.cyberlaw is a 'promo post' but also a bit of a summary: 'we’ve learned that the NSA creates profiles of porn viewing, online sexual activity and more from its vast database of Internet content and transactional data as part of a plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through speeches promoting disfavored—but not necessarily violent—political views.' While you're correct that perhaps there is not a 'sexint' database, it appears to at least be referring to a specific type of data (such as SIGINT or HUMINT). In which case the article simply should be changed to reflect this (in my opinion) as I think having this as a distinct class of data/strategy named as such is also quite important [the profiles and collected sex related data would be the 'SEXINT']. This quote is also at the beginning of the justsecurity article; I do believe Stanford Law School is more credible but since it links to the larger post as well, I feel as if it ultimately doesn't matter which article is used. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The only verifiable fact this article contains is that someone released secret documents that suggest the NSA has been keeping tabs on individual browsing habits. Please find me any reliable source that supports the notion that a "SEXINT" database exists, because when last I looked, the article contained none. Even the Huffington Post makes no mention of a database. And that, in my opinion, makes it a non-article. Parrot of Doom 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've since edited the article to reflect the usage of the term 'SEXINT'- it refers to the intelligence gathered. I had misunderstood the articles (I got kind of excited, can you blame me?) and thought that they were specifically talking about a database. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenwald (along with his two coauthors) is the original and only source. That's how the Snowden disclosures work — Snowden gave the confidential documents to only three journalists (and only Greenwald and Poitras have complete copies of the files). Those journalists go to some lengths to keep them confidential. The journalists vet the documents, and decide what part of the documents to make public (if any). Unless other journalists are given access to the source documents, all the other articles are just circular reporting.
The other articles may be useful for establishing notability, but they don't aid in verifiability. -- Hirsutism ( talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The claim that this is occurring is notable and has been made by a reliable source. If there's another source questioning the validity of the information, we should include it in the article to keep it balanced. The fact that the claim has been made is notable and verifiable, whether or not it can be validated through other sources. Deleting the article is the wrong approach to this. Tagging it as needing more balance would be sensible if there's a source to cite with another side of the story. If the term SEXINT hasn't been used by the other sources covering the disclosure, it should be renamed. strcat ( talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenwald is generally considered reliable. Asking for a second source is unreasonable. Why is this even a discussion? The content of the article is obviously good enough, but the name seems to be a very unofficial neologism. IMO the content should be merged into the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group article, since the original Greenwald article talks about it as just another JTRIG dirty trick. Thue ( talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
May I recommend making the article more similar to SIGINT or LOVEINT? My apologies for not realizing that the articles were referencing a specific database like MUSCULAR or XKEYSCORE, this has to be rectified regardless. I think that since the above -INTS are datatypes with their own wikipedia articles, SEXINT deserves it's own as well. It's pretty significant. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to LOVEINT. Only one of the sources actually mentions SEXINT, and much of the article is really about LOVEINT and similar programs anyway. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
LOVEINT refers to unauthorized insider misuse of intelligence tools, directed at unauthorized targets. "SEXINT" is authorized use of intelligence tools, directed at authorized targets. I think they're very different. --
Hirsutism (
talk) 23:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then the article and the sources should reflect that. At this point, they do not.
Gamaliel (
talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I edited the article a bit to reflect that it is a term coined by that journalist (whoops she's much more notable than a journalist) and such. I hadn't read these posts. I somewhat agree that a distinction with regards to it being authorized or not should be made evident on the article, the problem is that I don't think that there is necessarily a significant distinction in real life. On top of this, I think the main distinction is in how they are used: LOVEINT is for past relationship interests, SEXINT is specifically 'user X likes A B and C. Let's tell their spouse'. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then the article and the sources should reflect that. At this point, they do not.
Gamaliel (
talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sooo are we ready to close the discussion yet? (not trying to be pushy!) Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 02:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Afds normally run for 7 days unless there is a unanimous consensus either way (from what I've seen). So no. Tutelary ( talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The content of the article is notable, not the neologism. It should be given a new name and reworked to avoid focus on a term rather than the underlying newsworthy issue. I would rename it and start on that work now, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate while an AFD discussion is ongoing. strcat ( talk) 09:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename the article from a neologism. The content is quite distinct from LOVEINT. It covers the NSA spying on pornographic habits for blackmail, while LOVEINT is an article about NSA employees spying on their romantic interests without authorization from their superiors. strcat ( talk) 09:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the content of the article is what should be focussed on- what actually happens instead of "this is a term that is used to describe something" and then a history of the term or some other such obviously redundant purpose. I don't think a renaming is necessary as it was used by a significant person on the issue and may not have even been created by them- we should find that out. If the article is to be renamed, I wouldn't cry. I don't think it /needs/ to be renamed, but I don't think the name is necessarily perfect or ideal. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 15:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Ogma's comment just above me and strcat's comment of 20:15, 5 May 2014. Oreo Priest talk 23:43, 14 May 2014 (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.
- 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 delete. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable the panda ₯’ 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
SEXINT
- SEXINT ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems to be based only on one blog post. I can find little to no mention of it in any other sources. Furthermore, other sections of the article seem to indicate the author is engaged in synthesis, as those sections make no mention of the database the article seeks to describe. Parrot of Doom 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The article you linked cites
this media report, written by Gleen Greenwald and others, who have been reviweing the NSA files. It's not just a "blog post". In particular,
this image,
this other and
this are used as a source that indeed the NSA has a database which contain references to "online promiscuity". There are other references in the Wikipedia article too. This is a notable subject which should be included in Wikipedia. The article can be salvaged. --
177.20.130.9 (
talk) 17:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
It appears to meet the general notability guideline. It's been covered by The Huffington Post, Arstechnica, among other
reliable sources.
Tutelary (
talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Arstechnica link has nothing to do with SEXINT. And the Huffington Post article does not contain the word "SEXINT". That can only be found in the blog post.
Parrot
of Doom 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! I made the article partially because multiple other individual programs have articles as well. While not much information is known at the moment, I feel that it is vital to document. As for the sources, as was mentioned the original source is Greenwald who has been the main co-respondent in the Snowden-NSA issue.
Ogma the Scholar (
talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to rename it, but Afd should not be used as article cleanup. If you wanted to discuss moving the article/merging it, that should be done on the talk page. my !vote is to Keep, but rename. to something more suitable. It meets the general notability guideline, per its coverage in reliable sources. Tutelary ( talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! I made the article partially because multiple other individual programs have articles as well. While not much information is known at the moment, I feel that it is vital to document. As for the sources, as was mentioned the original source is Greenwald who has been the main co-respondent in the Snowden-NSA issue.
Ogma the Scholar (
talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Arstechnica link has nothing to do with SEXINT. And the Huffington Post article does not contain the word "SEXINT". That can only be found in the blog post.
Parrot
of Doom 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
It appears to meet the general notability guideline. It's been covered by The Huffington Post, Arstechnica, among other
reliable sources.
Tutelary (
talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The blog shouldn't be used as a source, since it's just a promo blurb that links to a more complete version at http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting . It's still problematic that the word "sexint" only appears in the headline and is found nowhere in the meat of it, which hints at an attempt to make up a new sensational term to encapsulate various NSA behaviors. While those behaviors appear to be sourced reasonably, including the cataloguing of sexual behaviors as potential vulnerabilities, the existence of a specific "SEXINT" database isn't. Maybe the article should be renamed (to what?) or merged with existing NSA database articles. 99.58.57.1 ( talk) 18:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to edit my comment with the following, I'll just post this here: Furthermore after reading the 'Guide to Deletion' (I'm new) I have a couple ideas. It says there are three criteria: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. (also copyright). I'm not sure which specific one this doesn't meet. I would definitely argue that it is verifiable and doesn't contain original research (check out /info/en/?search=Edward_Snowden#Release_of_NSA_documents and /info/en/?search=The_Intercept). As for Neutrality, I would definitely argue it is objective and factual. If this is contested, the best alternative I can offer would be expansion.
- Now to add to it: the post at Standford.cyberlaw is a 'promo post' but also a bit of a summary: 'we’ve learned that the NSA creates profiles of porn viewing, online sexual activity and more from its vast database of Internet content and transactional data as part of a plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through speeches promoting disfavored—but not necessarily violent—political views.' While you're correct that perhaps there is not a 'sexint' database, it appears to at least be referring to a specific type of data (such as SIGINT or HUMINT). In which case the article simply should be changed to reflect this (in my opinion) as I think having this as a distinct class of data/strategy named as such is also quite important [the profiles and collected sex related data would be the 'SEXINT']. This quote is also at the beginning of the justsecurity article; I do believe Stanford Law School is more credible but since it links to the larger post as well, I feel as if it ultimately doesn't matter which article is used. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The only verifiable fact this article contains is that someone released secret documents that suggest the NSA has been keeping tabs on individual browsing habits. Please find me any reliable source that supports the notion that a "SEXINT" database exists, because when last I looked, the article contained none. Even the Huffington Post makes no mention of a database. And that, in my opinion, makes it a non-article. Parrot of Doom 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've since edited the article to reflect the usage of the term 'SEXINT'- it refers to the intelligence gathered. I had misunderstood the articles (I got kind of excited, can you blame me?) and thought that they were specifically talking about a database. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenwald (along with his two coauthors) is the original and only source. That's how the Snowden disclosures work — Snowden gave the confidential documents to only three journalists (and only Greenwald and Poitras have complete copies of the files). Those journalists go to some lengths to keep them confidential. The journalists vet the documents, and decide what part of the documents to make public (if any). Unless other journalists are given access to the source documents, all the other articles are just circular reporting.
The other articles may be useful for establishing notability, but they don't aid in verifiability. -- Hirsutism ( talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The claim that this is occurring is notable and has been made by a reliable source. If there's another source questioning the validity of the information, we should include it in the article to keep it balanced. The fact that the claim has been made is notable and verifiable, whether or not it can be validated through other sources. Deleting the article is the wrong approach to this. Tagging it as needing more balance would be sensible if there's a source to cite with another side of the story. If the term SEXINT hasn't been used by the other sources covering the disclosure, it should be renamed. strcat ( talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenwald is generally considered reliable. Asking for a second source is unreasonable. Why is this even a discussion? The content of the article is obviously good enough, but the name seems to be a very unofficial neologism. IMO the content should be merged into the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group article, since the original Greenwald article talks about it as just another JTRIG dirty trick. Thue ( talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
May I recommend making the article more similar to SIGINT or LOVEINT? My apologies for not realizing that the articles were referencing a specific database like MUSCULAR or XKEYSCORE, this has to be rectified regardless. I think that since the above -INTS are datatypes with their own wikipedia articles, SEXINT deserves it's own as well. It's pretty significant. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to LOVEINT. Only one of the sources actually mentions SEXINT, and much of the article is really about LOVEINT and similar programs anyway. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
LOVEINT refers to unauthorized insider misuse of intelligence tools, directed at unauthorized targets. "SEXINT" is authorized use of intelligence tools, directed at authorized targets. I think they're very different. --
Hirsutism (
talk) 23:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then the article and the sources should reflect that. At this point, they do not.
Gamaliel (
talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I edited the article a bit to reflect that it is a term coined by that journalist (whoops she's much more notable than a journalist) and such. I hadn't read these posts. I somewhat agree that a distinction with regards to it being authorized or not should be made evident on the article, the problem is that I don't think that there is necessarily a significant distinction in real life. On top of this, I think the main distinction is in how they are used: LOVEINT is for past relationship interests, SEXINT is specifically 'user X likes A B and C. Let's tell their spouse'. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then the article and the sources should reflect that. At this point, they do not.
Gamaliel (
talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sooo are we ready to close the discussion yet? (not trying to be pushy!) Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 02:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Afds normally run for 7 days unless there is a unanimous consensus either way (from what I've seen). So no. Tutelary ( talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The content of the article is notable, not the neologism. It should be given a new name and reworked to avoid focus on a term rather than the underlying newsworthy issue. I would rename it and start on that work now, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate while an AFD discussion is ongoing. strcat ( talk) 09:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename the article from a neologism. The content is quite distinct from LOVEINT. It covers the NSA spying on pornographic habits for blackmail, while LOVEINT is an article about NSA employees spying on their romantic interests without authorization from their superiors. strcat ( talk) 09:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the content of the article is what should be focussed on- what actually happens instead of "this is a term that is used to describe something" and then a history of the term or some other such obviously redundant purpose. I don't think a renaming is necessary as it was used by a significant person on the issue and may not have even been created by them- we should find that out. If the article is to be renamed, I wouldn't cry. I don't think it /needs/ to be renamed, but I don't think the name is necessarily perfect or ideal. Ogma the Scholar ( talk) 15:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Ogma's comment just above me and strcat's comment of 20:15, 5 May 2014. Oreo Priest talk 23:43, 14 May 2014 (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.