Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmasking by intelligence agencies


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Unmasking by intelligence agencies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not seem to be an independently notable subject. As far as I can tell, it ostensibly relates to FISA warrants in the U.S., but really seems to be about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and various investigations into possible collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. This seems like a very small subject, warranting little more than a definition, with specific examples already being covered in a number of existing articles. - MrX 18:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - MrX 18:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - MrX 19:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, I wrote the article over the last couple days, and welcome improvements and expansion. But the footnotes show very clearly that it's an independently notable subject.  We could scatter its contents to various other articles, I suppose, but that would probably cause an undue weight problem in those other articles.  All of the material is presented neutrally, and it's a very interesting article, if I do say so myself.  We should follow WP:Summary style, leave this article in place, and put summaries of it (and wikilinks to it) where appropriate in other articles.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well-sourced. A search of "unmasking section 702" shows many more from across the political spectrum. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When I ran that search phrase through Google search, I came up with one Reddit thread. A search for "Unmasking by intelligence agencies" is similarly sparse.- MrX 22:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I used quotes to identify the search terms. They should not be included. Try . James J. Lambden (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to other appropriate articles, largely per MrX. Not every single idea that has appeared in print merits a standalone article. If it is to be kept, the article must be substantially revised to avoid reading as a WP:COATRACK for political views. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I emphaticaly deny that this article promotes any political view at all. But perhaps deleting it would.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep well-sourced and independently notable. Sufficient coverage exists to unmask this as a notable topic. Lepricavark (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure right now as to whether the article should be deleted, but if it is kept the title should be changed, or the content completely rewritten. This article is not about "unmasking by intelligence agencies" - it is entirely and specifically about unmasking by US intelligence agencies in accordance with FISA, and mostly about events that have occurred within the last year. The current title implies a broad overview of a topic in intelligence, entirely at odds with what the article is actually about. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind inserting “U.S.” into the title somewhere, but the advantage of leaving it out is that there’s room for the article to grow if info is published about unmasking in other countries. Wikipedia’s supposed to be a global encyclopedia, so it made sense to explain the general concept before getting into U.S. specifics.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a legitimate subject. Please note I have boldly removed the section on Trumps aides, this is because it was not actually an example of unmasking. (at least not in the context of this article, which defines a limited definition of the term "unmasked", not this that a source may says such and such was 'unmasked', but that does not mean if fits this subject. Some international content needs to be added, it focuses way too much on the USA, even specifically on the FBI, which is fine, but that is only a small part of the subject. Dysklyver  14:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete apparently this has to include to information which is not even vaguely relevant, it appears I was mistaken about what this is actually about, it is not about the ethics of international espionage. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the previous comments. It is just another attack page related to the US election, and we have plenty of more relevant titles where that information can be included. I suggest this is deleted and and some sourced sections moved over to Trump Tower wiretapping allegations or a related article. Dysklyver  16:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral I have given up trying to equate this to my understanding of a topic with the same name. This is probably fine, (it has enough sources to pass WP:GNG if the content is actually relevant to the US definition of the term). Dysklyver  20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump Tower is mentioned in only one sentence of this article: “Rice has said that she did unmask Trump aides at a December 2016 meeting at Trump Tower, unrelated to Kislyak or Russia.” Nothing else in this Article seems relevant to Trump Tower or Trump Tower wiretapping allegations.  I’m not sure what basis is being suggested for attacking this article as an attack page, or as containing any information which is not even vaguely relevant.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Dysklyver  16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Dysklyver  16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a very different view of what unmasking is to you it seems, but then I am British, I will probably write something at Intelligence unmasking (UK) at some point. It's clearly a different topic, and I apologise. My view is that anything talking about 'Trump + Russia' is an attack, and anything Trump writes about 'media + anything' is an attack, it is all utter POV and political maneuvering, even by otherwise reliable sources, and especially if it's connected to the FBI. I dislike the whole US system, here our intelligence service isn't political and this isn't a problem. Dysklyver  20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be a subject separate from FISA, and it is well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2017 (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.