Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Nimbus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:41, 2 September 2022

Project Nimbus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a contract between the Israeli government and various tech companies. A contract isn't inherently notable, and the citations only note the ensuing controversy (ie, there doesn't seem to be coverage of the program in and of itself...just that some object to it). I think this could be a paragraph in Israel Defense Forces or similar article that summarizes controversies about the parties involved. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If nothing else, this is a reasonable search term that could be made a redirect. I'm also uncomfortable with the quick action to try to delete coverage of such a controversial contract. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable. On your last point, I think it is mostly a WP:NOTNEWS issue; we don't have evidence of any lasting controversy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Palestine, Computing, Military, and Technology. Relisting in four categories since they were not properly transcluded. Skynxnex (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An unprecedented project of this magnitude clearly passes WP:GNG. إيان (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two paragraphs into Ministry of Economy (Israel), under the near-empty History section, and redirect. Nimbus is a contract and technology policy of THAT ministry and NOT of the Ministry of Science of Technology that exists alongside! The factual two first paragraphs are an improper WP:SPINOUT. The rest of the AfDd article contains opinions and non-Israeli corporate matters barely related to the subject. These last three paragraphs are covered by WP:NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe without the controversy it may not have been notable in and on itself, but now it clearly does. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The suggestion of nom that this may belong under the IDF is proof that this article is not suitable for keep. It is a LOGICAL conclusion if you read OUR article but, objectively, the two are not related. This is a national policy that affects all agencies in Israel which evoked a discussion about what the impacts might be for Israeli defense and intelligence, not especially targeted by the policy. There is no relationship whatsoever but for how this discussion evolved (and everyone has a right to get worked up about what they choose of course). Hence the other conclusion of nom and their recommendation for a partial merger, be it to another article (that they explicitly keep open), makes perfect sense. The article, as is, is a political shit sandwich of unrelated matters. We have a national policy here, a hypothetical discussion on possible implications (or bashing), and then reactions to these discussions and what these meant for the job security of people who expressed their personal opinions, corporate affairs, and the like. In short: the focus of this article keeps shifting and follows, after the factual writeup, nothing but a news cycle, creating a distorted conception of the subject. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, even the first two paragraphs were WP:POV. I streamlined these just a bit. The entire article was written from the perspective of sensationalism and conspiracy theories, style FOX New and the New York Post. We should not turn WP into a tabloid! gidonb (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is indeed anything worth keeping, a prospect that Gidon brings into doubt. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 *'''Comment'''. The suggestion of nom that this may belong under the IDF is proof that this article is not suitable for keep. It is a LOGICAL conclusion if you read OUR article but, objectively, the two are not related. This is a national policy that affects all agencies in Israel which evoked a discussion about what the impacts ''might'' be for Israeli defense and intelligence, not especially targeted by the policy. There is no relationship whatsoever but for how this discussion evolved (and everyone has a right to get worked up about what they choose of course). Hence the other conclusion of nom and their recommendation for a partial merger, be it to another article (that they explicitly keep open), makes perfect sense. The article, as is, is a political shit sandwich of unrelated matters. We have a national policy here, a hypothetical discussion on possible implications (or bashing), and then reactions to these discussions and what these meant for the job security of people who expressed their personal opinions, corporate affairs, and the like. In short: '''the focus of this article keeps shifting and follows, after the factual writeup, nothing but a news cycle, creating a distorted conception of the subject'''. [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb|talk]]) 13:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 ::On second look, even the first two paragraphs were [[WP:POV]]. I streamlined these just a bit. The entire article was written from the perspective of [[sensationalism]] and [[conspiracy theories]], style FOX New and the New York Post. We should not turn WP into a tabloid! [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb|talk]]) 14:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
+* '''Merge''' if there is indeed anything worth keeping, a prospect that Gidon brings into doubt.  [[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] <sup>([[User talk:HereToHelp|''talk to me'']])</sup> 17:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)