Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal (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. I'm not inclined to salt the title at this time, but if anyone notices another re-creation, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll G4 and salt. Deor (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See prior AfD here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal Creator has now changed usernames? &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 22:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment wow, wasn't this already just deleted today? Cramyourspam (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yes. See the link to the discussion, which I posted above.  It was speedy delete for reasons noted, but article creator now changed accounts (or so it seems) and reposted.  If I was not supposed to repost for AfD, sorry & please correct me...  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 22:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - The original deletion was done out of process. Author blanking is prohibited during AFD. I had just posted to the deleting admin as a first step in route to a deletion review and would pursue that recourse if the deleting admin did not reverse his original decision. Much attribution is lost in the history of the original page that needs to be present in this article.—John Cline (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I retract my !vote to speedy close this discussion and strike my entire comment.—John Cline (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * CommentThe content of this page is different than the other, see subject headings. The other was deleted because it didn't clarify the "noteworthiness" of the book, i.e., media citations.  This one documents that it was the topic of an ABC Network discussion, amongst other media in New Orleans, Phoenix, Boston, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalstudent (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer to GaffAnd, no, I have no idea who posted the original page. I am a journalism student who was told if I were using Wiki to copy the page, because it might disappear.  I am doing a report on Snowden and The Edward Snowden Affair is the longest book on the subject.  I'm sure I'm not the only student who needs this page.  I read that the page was lacking citations.  They were all there (just needed to look at the references), they were just hard to find, hence the reformatting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalstudent (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete No independent, reliable references about the book. The radio interviews with the author certainly isn't independent. The "Online Media Reception" comes from blogs hosted by blogspot, therefore not reliable. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just one of many books and articles written on this subject. If this book has more sells than others and/or new information that has not come out then maybe add a line to the Snowden/NSA page depending on what it is. But right now at best it could be included as a single line on another page like "Many books have been written about this including..." but again that is only if this book was a bigger seller than others or offered new information which I do not see yet. Resaltador (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete User:Maldoror2, who is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and who is suspected of being a Sockpuppeteer, created his account on 29 September 2014 with an edit involving the book The Edward Snowden Affair. That same day, he created the Wikipedia page devoted exclusively to said book, which is here proposed for deletion. Maldoror2's contributions to Wikipedia have been almost entirely limited to this book, its author and publisher. Moreover, User:JamesBWatson, the admin who indefinitely blocked him, has rebuked Maldoror2 thus: "Your only purpose in editing has from the start been to try to use Wikipedia as a PR medium. You have even stated yourself that you have created 'vanity' pages (your choice of word, not mine) on behalf of a publisher that you are employed by." (Emphases in original.)
 * Accordingly, the article in question should be deleted because:
 * (1) as a vanity page created by a PR professional on behalf of the book's publisher, it violates Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines; and
 * (2) as a vehicle for advertisement, it fails Notability (books) by flouting the core Wikipedia policy prohibiting promotion.
 * JohnValeron (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This book (from a non-notable publisher by a non-notable author) comprehensively fails the book notability criteria. There's no need to argue for deletion on the grounds that it was created by a paid PR editor. The gross deficiency of the supporting references is more than sufficient to strongly support deletion. However, their misleading and somewhat desperate nature is typical of paid-for promotional articles. The references are:
 * 1. The author promoting himself on local radio stations. Note that contrary to the misleadingly piped link "WGNO - ABC Network 990 AM", that station has nothing to do with ABC, who sold all their radio assets to Cumulus Media in 2011. The link in the citation goes to WGSO which is owned by Northshore Radio, LLC.
 * 2. The "extended, multi-page centerpiece expose on The Edward Snowden Affair" in Homeland Security Today was actually written by the book's author, although the citation doesn't indicate that.
 * 3. Various non-notable blogs, one of which (Down with Tyranny) mentions the book multiple times, each time linking to the blog owner's "store" on Amazon, where he gets a cut of the sale. Plus a "staff recommendation" from a bookstore in Amsterdam.
 * 4. The quoted "review" by "Robert Gleason, author of End of Days and The Nuclear Terrorist" is referenced to Amazon, where it was supplied as a blurb by the publisher.
 * 5. The assertion "The book has also been cited in The Next Web" is literally a passing mention. I have yet to see any full-length reviews in any major newspaper or journal.
 * 6. "The book climbed into the top 1,000 bestsellers before peaking at No. 4 on Amazon.com's Civil Rights category on March 4, 2014." Uh huh. Apart from the complete lack of verification, this is really grasping at straws. Its overall sales ranking on Amazon is 401,536. Compare this to the overall Amazon ranking of Greenwald's book on Snowden (2,967), which in addition has multiple major and independent press reviews and was #5 on the The New York Times Best Seller list for all non-fiction.
 * Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I have struck Winner423's "Retain" below. He and Journalstudent, are confirmed sockpuppets of the article's creator, Maldoror2. See Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2. - Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Retain Voceditenore acknowledges that the ABC Network claim is valid (the hyperlink title was a typo--yet she didn't correct it on the article's page). WGNO - ABC Network 990 AM is definitely an ABC affiliate (don't take Wiki's word for it, go to the radio station's website--http://wgno.com. The ABC banner is right next to the station's title at the top of the page).

If we are going to be fair, this alone qualifies the book as being notable under criterion No. 1 by Wikipedia standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Criteria

The Homeland Security Today citation also pans out: We need to start going back through the entire source citation:  The magazine's editor, Anthony Kimery, devotes the issue's masthead to the book and spends quite a bit of time talking about it (p. 3, as listed within the original user's citation).

As for the Down with Tyranny! blogsite: A) It has a hyperlink to its Amazon store in the right sidebar, it is not a pay-for-click site as Voceditenore implies (no more harmful, and much less intrusive, than the paid ads on, say, Rush Limbaugh's website).  B)  If we want to be fair, if you Google the blogsite, it has a lot of other websites which link over to it. It is a blog site, but an irrefutably popular one that readers obviously respect due to its following.

(But I agree with Voceditenore, we can disregard the sales claim and the blurb by Gleason, not because he isn't a recognized author, but because it is a two-line quote.)

Returning to the issue of notability, under [|criterion 5], this book qualifies on this count as well because "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." As displayed on the author's website, primitivarum.weebly.com, he was recognized by Pulitzer-winning film critic Roger Ebert, and his work is already included in college curriculums at University of West Georgia and Yonsei University. His writing was also translated (Dromema, issue 16) and, from the looks of it, published in journals as well (The Externalist: A Journal of Perspectives, issue 8).

It is also interesting that what is listed on the book's Wiki page isn't an exhaustive catalog of its media recognition, cf., the author's website lists much more, including print interviews (I'm not about to go through these and insert them into the book's Wiki page, I'm merely making a point).

All of this, alongside no one contesting the book's acknowledgement in a full review in Pure Politics (Journalstudent is correct, the site is independent and based out of Atlanta) or its being selected by the American Book Center as a Top Ten choice in the field of political science (sourced and verifiable on the book's main page), qualifies it as Wiki-worthy.

Lastly, as Resaltador points out, this book is noteworthy because it offers new information on the subject: As its synopsis makes clear, the book distinguishes itself from the other two on the market about Edward Snowden because it "explores the first 62 mass surveillance disclosures while providing a historical and legal framework for the documents." If you read the outlines for the other two, Greenwald's text is an autobiography of the journalist's time with Snowden which includes new classified documents while Harding's is a biography. All things considered, this is a formal study of what took place and an explanation of what the legal documents mean.

It's funny. We're all passing judgment on this book but has anyone read it?

Winner423 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Winner423 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Your hyperlink for the reference goes to this (WGSO), where there is no ABC banner whatsoever. And Resaltador said exactly the opposite of what you claim. Their view was that this article should be deleted. All of this is moot of course, because Winner423 is currently blocked. If you are ever unblocked, never interfere with or refactor another user's comment. Striking another editor's comment is only appropriate in an AfD when the comment is from a sockpuppet, e.g. User:Journalstudent. – Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, I understand and share your well-founded suspicion that User:Winner423 is yet another creation by the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer User:Maldoror2, and is accordingly likewise blocked. However, both Winner423's contributions page and his comment posted on this page show he is not blocked. You're probably misconstruing the template at User talk:Winner423, which actually relates to Maldoror2's indefinitely blocked sockpuppet User:Journalstudent. Winner423 reposted the template as part of his attempt to get Journalstudent unblocked. JohnValeron (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. User:Winner423 is was blocked. He was caught in an autoblock because their IP address was the same as the one used User:Maldoror2. The administrator has declined to lift the autoblock so far. I imagine they are now editing from another IP. Voceditenore (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, thanks for the update. Please, how does one determine that an account was caught in an autoblock? Autoblock points to Special:BlockList, but that returns no results when searched for Winner423. JohnValeron (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you lifting the block (although you could have informed me I was free to post . . . a person could get the impression you do not want others to argue in this book's defense) and, yes, I have been caught behind an IP firewall or "autoblock" (as have two of my classes, i.e., the reason it looks as if I "[took] up" cf. my talk page where a previous poster left off--and also the reason I have taken a personal interest in this article).

Second, my apologies for the strikethrough. It was not made clear that this was to only be done to banned users; given the context (i.e., there's an instance on this page), I perceived it as protocol if a current comment was superseding a previous one. (Wikimedia is smart in its R&D of a more user-friendly interface because, as it admits, it is unrealistic to expect new users to first find, then read, the site's voluminous posting legislation in short order.) However, it would have been nice if you'd have asked if I understood this before reinstating the block without further ado ; )  However, water under the bridge.  We move forward.  Now, back to the book's hearing.

I will credit you with one correction and rise you another. You are correct that the author was on WGSO, not WGNO (the link confirms it--however it is nonetheless a nationally-recognized, independent radio station). However, his sales records--which for our purposes test the book's social value since Gurnow is a new author (1 book to date)--are located on his website: http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales.html

Unless you are going to claim his posted screencaps are photoshopped, which I highly doubt given that Amazon.com could file suit against him and/or his publisher, then the book is/was in fact a bestseller, which at one point rivaled even Greenwald's impressive numbers, which you reported.

Lastly, as I went back to rectify the WSGO/WGNO confusion (the wikilink now matches the hyperlink), I realized something else we need to take into consideration:  All of the radio hosts who had the author on their show have Wikipedia pages (thus are recognized as notable personalities themselves), with the exception of one, Mark Edge, who nonetheless is given professional recognition in a Wikipedia subsection.

Winner423 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Winner423, you have addressed at length the issue of notability but have not replied to my comment above at 16:04, 3 October 2014, in which I argued that the article in question should be deleted because:
 * (1) as a vanity page created by a PR professional on behalf of the book's publisher, it violates Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines; and
 * (2) as a vehicle for advertisement, it fails Notability (books) by flouting the core Wikipedia policy prohibiting promotion.
 * Please respond to these concerns. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no problem (and thanks for asking for my opinion, I'm humbled because I was merely offering my own two-cents on the matter before). But, hey, I'm more than happy to clear my throat and address the crowd ; )

I'm of two minds on this matter. Yes, the original poster apparently admitted (I'm still new at decoding Wikispeak, so my interpretation of the historic record might be admittedly rough) he was a hired PR hand. However, to my understanding, that matter was settled by page deletion (since this is the article's 2nd nomination). The person who posted the current version made corrections right off the bat--I'm assuming--to seal the cracks that the first version fell through (not sure why amendments couldn't have been made to the first instead of simply scrapping it but, again, I'm new on how Wikipedia does things).

However, as a long-time Wikipedia reader--and as I browsed a few policy pages I remember reading the rule that editors are to look at the bigger picture and that no rule is hard and fast--I would think the first and most important question should be "Does an article offer something to Wikipedia's audience?" Thus, should (a page exist), imho, comes before why (a page came into existence). Case in point, teachers grade the content of student papers. Who wrote it (in this analogy, the equivalent to whoever started this article) should never play a role in assessing the quality of the writing (analogously, this article). In theory, all governing bodies function on this principle, which is why discrimination cases arise in the workplace--an employer's personal opinion of the employee factored into his or her assessment of the employee's job performance.

From where I stand, both as reader and teacher, this is an informative page about a book which offers something the others don't--which audiences apparently like as well, cf. it currently has a higher star rating than the other two primary Snowden books on Amazon, although not nearly as many reviews (the same with the book's Goodreads page, although the author has a 300+ following). I actually went out and bought a copy this morning to see what all the hub-bub was about and, yes, it is on Barnes & Nobles shelves. I'll put it this way, it has 70 (yes, 70) pages of sources! I don't even want to guess how many there are total but I wouldn't be surprised if there were over 1,000.

As for the author's credentials, the back cover states he is a pre-law professor, i.e., attorney(?), i.e., knows what he's writing about, which is law, who studied linguistics under and NSA analyst, that "has more than a decade of experience in information technology" which, all things considered, I think better qualifies him to speak on the matter than Luke Harding, who wrote The Snowden Files and whose background is simply journalism.

Yet, in the end, I also think this is another apple/orange scenario: The page is about the work and should be about the work. The value of its contents wouldn't shift if we simply changed the name on the cover. But, again, acknowledging Wikipedia policy, it looks like the guy still makes the grade (as does the book for that matter), however argumentatively slim, there's still benefit of the doubt if we want to be fair.

I hope this addresses your question.

Winner423 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC) LOL, well, if I read Wikipedia, I wouldn't have to guess the total number of sources in the book. This page actually states there's 905!

Winner423 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Winner423, thanks for your response. If I may, I'd like to clear up your misunderstanding of the article's provenance. "Yes," you write, "the original poster apparently admitted…he was a hired PR hand. However, to my understanding, that matter was settled by page deletion (since this is the article's 2nd nomination). The person who posted the current version made corrections right off the bat--I'm assuming--to seal the cracks that the first version fell through."
 * In fact, there are no original poster and second poster. There is only User:Maldoror2, who is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and who is suspected of being a Sockpuppeteer.
 * Maldoror2 created the article on the same day he created his Wikipedia account: September 29, 2014.
 * On October 1, the article was nominated for deletion. Eight hours later, in an apparent fit of pique, Maldoror2 blanked the page, removing the entire contents.
 * Five hours thereafter, User:Journalstudent restored the page.
 * Less than an hour later, the article was re-nominated for deletion.
 * The next day, both Maldoror2 and his suspected sockpuppet Journalstudent were indefinitely blocked.
 * So you see, the fact that there was a second nomination for deletion of the same article, posted twice by the same individual using multiple accounts, in no way ameliorates my concerns. The article remains both a vanity page created by a PR professional on behalf of the book's publisher—thus violating Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines—and a vehicle for advertisement, failing Notability (books) by flouting the core Wikipedia policy prohibiting promotion. JohnValeron (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron Ah. I see. Interesting. It just strikes me as odd, and I don't mean any disrespect to the Wiki lawmakers, that contents come after creator. Under current policy, it doesn't matter how noteworthy or important a topic is, whether it stands--first and foremost--depends on who's reporting it, i.e., (however implausible, it still encapsulates the theory) if Amnesty International posts an article about one of its volunteers being taken hostage, we'd strike it down. The only way Wiki readers will get Wiki info on the matter is if someone outside of the organization catches wind of it.

This would still be Wiki-worthy regardless of who is saying it, right?

Moreover, you and I have edited this since its inception. Doesn't that make it our byproduct as well (which I understand to be the underlying philosophy behind the website), or anyone else who might edit it, now that it has been adjusted from its original form? You and I aren't the originators. . ..

I believe my point (since you provided a clearer picture of how it came to be) is this:  How might this page's contents differ if someone else posted them? We're judging whether the book merits a page, would we be having this discussion if the PR lid hadn't been blown? If not, that means the page is worthy in-and-of itself, correct? Again, I'm merely thrown for a loop that Wikipedia places more importance on the author of an article than what the article says.

Obviously this isn't a dead-stop deal breaker or we wouldn't be having this conversation because the page would have been erased at the beginning of its Phoenix-like resurrection.

Winner423 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Winner423, since you've been so forthcoming, I hope you'll clarify a different point of confusion for me. You self-identify as a professor of Political Science/History at Three Rivers Community College who has given students "an editing assignment to display the malleability of historic fact." You further declare, "I have gotten the culpable student"—presumably User:Maldoror2— "to confess to Internet vandalism" at Wikipedia. This obviously does not jibe with User:JamesBWatson, the admin who indefinitely blocked Maldoror2 and rebuked him thus: "Your only purpose in editing has from the start been to try to use Wikipedia as a PR medium. You have even stated yourself that you have created 'vanity' pages (your choice of word, not mine) on behalf of a publisher that you are employed by." (Emphases in original.)
 * So, which is it, Professor. Is Maldoror2 a confessed vandal at Three Rivers Community College, or is he a public relations professional working for a publisher? Admittedly, those pursuits are not mutually exclusive, but it seems unlikely he would be both an undergrad and PR pro concurrently. Thanks again for your patience in explaining these things to me. JohnValeron (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron Funny you should mention that. I am currently addressing this issue here: Editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2 (Gimme a sec to proofread it, it is rather lengthy because I myself am putting the pieces together now that you have pointed me in the direction of the train wreck.)  I'll tag you in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner423 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and WP:SALT this article per disruption done. G4 states: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." It has the same title as the article that was deleted and nothing has been done for improvement that met the original AfD's concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically the first deletion was done under CSD-G7 by an "author blanking" and the AFD closed because of the deletion. It makes enough difference that CSD-G4 is not valid.—John Cline (talk) 03:08, 8 October 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.