Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA HTTP cookies controversy (2nd nomination)

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. Sr 13 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA HTTP cookies controversy[edit]

Was nominated a week ago and Kept with the argument "let's wait until the DRV for Brandt is closed". Well, it has been closed, and this topic is as non-notable as it was then. -- Itub 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as before - regardless of whether or not Brandt has an article, this controversy is worth a blurb in a newspaper, but is not an encyclopedic topic. Most every website you visit uses cookies. The CIA used them. Someone pointed out that they weren't supposed to. They stopped. It's not an encyclopedic topic. --BigDT 14:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Internet privacy. Extremely unimportant, nonencyclopedic. --- RockMFR 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RockMFR. This was a relatively minor story from a few years back, and WP:NOTNEWS. How many people still care, or ought to care? Yechiel Man 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. There was little "controversy" here. In two separate incidents, Brandt informed the CIA and the NSA of some issues on their public web sites, and they fixed the problems. There were a few news stories about it at the time, but there was certainly no ongoing "controversy". The only reason this article exists is because it was split from the Brandt article in the recent deletion; had it not been related to him, we probably wouldn't have had it in the first place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coment "How to get rid of an article that you dislike but without real consensus to delete: 1. Merge the content into other articles--since it is a merge no content will be lost. 2. Since the merged articles will contain relatively little content, delete the separate articles as being trivial." If the disputed close of the main article is to have any show of respectability, let its recommendations be followed. DGG 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles containing the words "Daniel Brandt" and end this petty vendetta against the poor chap once and for all. Screw process. MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS, please don't give consensus-backed ammunition to spambot makers with agenda to destroy the entire Wikipedia =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still pretty much a storm in the teacup. Other controversies Brandt has been involved in may be notable; this, however, warrants only short mention in... some other article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a CIA article has a bunch of newspaper mentions and this makes it notable. SakotGrimshine 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making huge article even worse with this kind of trivia? Pavel Vozenilek 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others above have noted, this is a very minor incident that simply is not relevant enough for an article.--Isotope23 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to fit notability requirements. Let's watch and wait rather than delete it outright. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for what? --- RockMFR 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's some really compelling reason to delete, I'd like to give the article some time to expand. This article has been in existence for not even two weeks yet, for example. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the government was banned from doing this in 2000, was found doing it again in 2002 and 2005 (NSA). While not as major as the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, this was hardly a minor affair. John Vandenberg 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not notable. Most of the articles referenced are from 2002, which is a long time ago in the internet world. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "which is a long time ago in the internet world" what does that have to do with anything? --MichaelLinnear 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the CIA still use persistent cookies? that the CIA used some persistent cookies FIVE years ago, but no longer does, is NOT notable. If they still use cookies, it might be marginally notable. --Aude (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've already got this covered, folks: I see that Internet privacy#Cookies says "See main article, HTTP cookie", and HTTP cookie#Privacy and third-party cookies has a very good account of the CIA/NSA cookies incident. Good stuff. So the article is entirely superfluous. CWC 05:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered elsewhere.--MONGO 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is well sourced and well-written. If the "complex merge" of the Brandt article was in fact a compromise at all as claimed this article should be kept. (Part of me would like to merge this into a Brandt article again if possible or at least to PIR but that's clearly not going to happen). JoshuaZ 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why the obsessive focus on Brandt, who seems to be a big nobody? MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't an "obsessive focus on Brandt". Brandt is a notable public individual. AMIB attempted to split the article up as a compromise between those who emphasized privacy claims and those who prefered to have an article about him since he is a notable individual. Supposedly, this compromise would not result in the removal of any information on Wikipedia other than a few personal details of Brandt's life. If that is the case, we should keep this. JoshuaZ 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered adequately under privacy and cookie pages. I'm sure the CIA gets all the information it needs from IP addresses in server logs and referrer logs regardless of usage of cookies. Even ref 4, The Guardian, calls the issue a "relatively limited concern" and a "relatively trivial infraction". Certainly not worthy of a dedicated article. --Dual Freq 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I thought you were all kidding when i first read the title... perhaps it was the name of some strange website, alas no, a totally unnecesary article that hardly needs mention in CIA or Cookie pages where it should be. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the nominator. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - about a news story from 2002, which has occasionally be mentioned in subsequent news stories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.