Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spying on the United Nations


 * 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. John254 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Spying on the United Nations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is undersourced for the claims it makes.
 * This article makes numerous unsourced statments.
 * The article name is POV in that it removes any question as to if the UN was spied on.
 * The Andrew Wikkie comment is made by an unlinked person who is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. His context to the subject is unclear.
 * The only source about the memo seems to counter the entire article. All other statements about the memo are unsourced
 * Of the few Program reports made in the article all are unsourced in the reflist
 * The final references about bugs but do not note any context as to what or who was bugged. Where the bugs active? Where the bugs placed by anyone else? Who at the UN knew about the bugs and when? --Lemmey (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Lemmey (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, essay and WP:SOAP. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; it's not a very good article, but that's not a deletion reason. There has been spies in the UN; it's Wikipedia's job to write an article on that based on the available sources. This is a start to that article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has its problems but it is hardly unsalvageable. What is described above is a perfect Talk page discussion, but really contains no deletion rationale that I can see. Is there a project that could take responsibility for this? I do agree the title is wrong. For one thing, the UN has certainly and incontrovertibly been spied on since the beginning, but this is mere statecraft and the way things work. The title should be about this history (and it wasn't just the Cold War!). This was a specific scandal/revelation/controversy and should be titled appropriately, e.g. 2003 allegations of Security Council surveillance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As, above the article has its problems but it is hardly unsalvageable. The whistle-blowing by GCHQ translator Katharine Gun about the U.S. NSA memo on UN bugging, the abandoned official secrets court case aginst her, combined with a former UK Cabinet Minister stating she had seen bugging transcripts is about as good evidence as it gets with spying allegations short of a full court case. Plenty of sources out there that could be referenced. Rwendland (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep & rename. And gut some of the unreferenced stuff while we're at it. But, on the whole, it appears to be a good beginning to an article. Pastordavid (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything else here. This article is a decent start on something.  It needs some clean-up and probably a better name, but Keep and Rename should be the course of action.
 * Keep and Rename per Dhartung. -- JulesN   Talk  06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, rename, and strong cleanup per all.  Thin boy  00  @525, i.e. 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dhartung, others. Markovich292  05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject is significant and reliable sources are available to develop the article.  JGHowes talk  -  01:01, 26 April 2008 (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.