Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govware


 * 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. If anybody wants to take a shot at merging some of the content somewhere else, ask any admin to userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Govware

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a crass violation of WP:OR and WP:V. "Govware" is not used in practically any of the sources cited, nor is a definition given in the 1st source cited. The rest is a mishmash table of stuff that is better suited for individual prose articles rather than this WP:SYN. Most (but not all) of the contents from its table can be found in the NSA ANT catalog article, making this page mostly a WP:CFORK as well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Simple Gsearch shows many prior uses of this word with various meanings. No reason to privilege this would-be neologism over prior usage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Malware. Judging by the content in the article at the moment, this could be a R with possibilities but as for now, it is a potential wiktionary definition, and largely a content fork from the NSA Ant Catalog article mentioned in the nomination. Correct me if I am wrong, but it could be 90% malicious software, and 10% malicious hardware dongles and other intrusion techniques. I think Wikipedia could wait a year or two, perhaps less, to see if this concept stands on its own, or whether it makes a significant difference to our knowledge about malware that some of it is created or modified by government, hackers, crackers or corporations. I think with the massive resources some governments may have invested in the software, then if the leaks and cyberwars continue, it, or Government-sponsored computer intrusion (deliberate redlink) may soon have enough reliable sources to become a WP:LIST or a signpost article or more.
 * While the concept will soon deserve an article, and the term is verifiable, these links to alternative uses make me think that Govware is not yet established enough as a word to host such an article:
 * http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/investigations/microtechs-complex-ties/567/
 * http://www.govware.sg/
 * The words "crass" and "violation" are not helpful in reaching consensus. Nominator: please strike them.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a pretty crass WP:V violation. The Der Spiegel article about TAO/ANT does not ever mention "govware". In fact their entire site doesn't have even one mention of the term The wiki article was changed by an IP (you?) to now link to a completely different reference in Linux Magazin, which does use the term in a context that may indeed equate it with Government malware ("Possible Govware Trojan"), although it's rather unclear what meaning it has given that "Trojan" was appended to it. But that's written by a German-name author, although publishing in English. It's possible that's a cultural thing. With my modicum of understanding of Swiss German this Swiss Law FAQ seems to make Govware synonymous with interception software. The paper you linked to ("In God We Trust All Others We Monitor") is also written by employees of a German company. The paper has pretty poor write-up and uses the term a couple of times first as "provable stealth government software (GovWare)" and then as "stealth GovWare Trojan". So it's not even providing a clear definition. I don't think this term is in widespread use with the "government malware" meaning in English (not by native speakers anyway) from what I've seen so far. I would not object making this page about the Swiss state Trojan stuff (as the 66 IP has began to do), assuming govware really conveys that meaning in [Swiss] German these days. It would probably make more sense to use a less ambiguous title for English readers though (Swiss federal trojan controversy or something like that). The US stuff TAO/ANT etc. can then be linked by "see also" without risking OR definitions or articles that become too nebulous in scope. I found an article in Techworld  about the 2006 Swiss MegaPanzer also called Bundestrojaner, although that title is currently redirecting (in part correctly given ) to a section about the 2011 German one... so this page is a bit of WP:CFORK again (only about the German one though, can't find in anything about the Swiss one in the English Wikipedia besides what was added to the lead of this article). At least Bundestrojaner needs a disambiguation between the Swiss and the German one, if not cover both of them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I found a better written article in English (still mostly about the German stuff though with Austria, Switzerland, and The Netherlands mentioned) here, which is a bit more clearly defining Govware as "government spyware" in the titl, though strangely the rest of the paper never uses the term again and only talks of trojan horses thereafter. So I wouldn't object to a redirect to spyware, where a def and overwiew section could be added based on that paper. The page should probably be turned into a disambiguation with the other meanings later. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added something myself there . Also mentioned it at Computer and network surveillance . Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * delete I am just not seeing this terminology. Main hits are for a company which still exists and a trade show which apparently does not; I'm not seeing any significant evidence of this usage. Almost every reference in the article is to some Der Spiegel articles posted within the last month; the thousand-odd apparent older references all appear to be hits on the conference (at which presentations were made about malware) except one hit from 2009 cited in the article. The coinage didn't catch on and we shouldn't have a redirect from it at this time. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to List of government-sponsored malware. Topic is notabile. Terminology is not. ~KvnG 18:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 12:32, 11 February 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.