Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHS media monitoring services


 * 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 No consensus. ~ GB fan 19:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DHS media monitoring services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This borders on a conspiracy theory, ref-bombed with the same news story being reported in many sources. The database mentioned doesn't appear to exist yet. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - On what grounds is this being nominated for deletion? There is extensive, continued coverage (what you describe as "ref-bomb") since the initial announcement by most major media outlets, with most coverage being critical. If you had read any of the sources, the coverage is for a contract to build the media monitoring service...so it is going to be built. As this is one of the largest monitoring solutions to be built, it is notable in that light alone.MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of WP:CRYSTAL speculation, and a lot of the same news article (  are all basically the same and based on a single Bloomberg report), and coverage of DHS denials, but nothing more. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL refers to unsourced material. Per your nomination, the article was "ref-bombed" by a number of sources, covering the topic. A number of source have their own opinions/view on the topic. The topic has received extensive global coverage in part due to it's timing near the Facebook Zuckerberg hearing. While there is currently limited material for the topic, it is properly sourced, and being a stub is not a valid cause for deletion.
 * Coverage:


 * 1) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dhs-compile-database-journalists-bloggers/, Snopes
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment so WP:CBALL point 5 is closest in relevance, in effect the monitoring being a "product".  Thus the key aspect is "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.". Number of sources & standard notability are irrelevant - the question is "is there sufficient encyclopedic information?", otherwise we should merge it to the DHS (or related) article. On that, I am unsure - the actual detail on the project is 5 or 6 lines, duplicated source to source, just with some differing viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk)


 * Comment However even if I come down in favour of a CRYSTAL violation, this shouldn't have come to AfD, since the content is clearly there - if it can't self-support, yet, then it should be merged with another. There are no grounds for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -★-  PlyrStar93 . → Message me. ← 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -★-  PlyrStar93 . → Message me. ← 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.