Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Nimbus


 * 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 keep.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 01:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Project Nimbus

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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. Zim Zala Bim talk 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * Keep: An unprecedented project of this magnitude clearly passes WP:GNG. إيان (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 direct relationship 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 more 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, 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 initial writeup, nothing but a news cycle, creating a distorted perception of the subject. 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! gidonb (talk) 14:58, 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! gidonb (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge if there is indeed anything worth keeping, a prospect that gidonb brings into doubt. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep cf. Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.121.14.122 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sorry for doing this as anon, but I lost my wiki login data. What about the supposedly obtained training docs about Project Nimbus that had been obtained here https://theintercept.com/2022/07/24/google-israel-artificial-intelligence-project-nimbus/ ? I find it rather odd, that an article, that only exists for less than a week, with this kind of hot topic, is being marked for deletion this quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:1749:7E74:D1F7:B90E:1DDC:59F4 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Odd that posting in this AfD is your only activity, but to respond to your "with this kind of hot topic" remark, it seems this is only "hot" because of a very recent flare-up of specific criticism, and I argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. -- Zim Zala Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * because I stumbled over this topic in a news article. Being curious, I wiki'd it. Seeing how fresh the wiki entry is and how fast it was marked for deletion, I came here to throw in my two cents. Wouldn't be the first time that an opposing party will do their thing to get an uncomfortable article removed. Also, of course you won't be able to to find any activities based on my IPv6. My ISP changes the #'s every three days. But I'm not new here. I personally met Jimmy (introduced by a mutual friend of his) some 15 years ago, when he visited DePauw University in Indiana, U.S. 2003:DD:1735:755D:84A1:2252:82E3:3E5 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IP baselessly suggests that the nominator may handle from bad faith. The nominator suggested removal because the article does not meet objective WP standards. Nothing else! gidonb (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep we have enough RS to show that this is a notable subject. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's attracted lots of attention at this point; it's notable and not just "news." Freoh (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (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.