Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Environment Integrity


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Nominator withdrew the AfD. (non-admin closure) HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Web Environment Integrity

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and the 10-year test. The last significant coverage of this incident was in 2023 and the proposal was abandoned and failed to get significant traction. We are not a newspaper. Sohom ( talk ) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom ( talk ) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is not temporary. Kinopiko  talk 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kinopiko Could you explain how the subject has received significant coverage over a "sufficiently significant period" (as required by WP:GNG)?
 * To expand of my rationale, according to the sourcing in the article (and what I could find online) there are exactly three reliable sources that have covered this issue from a period starting at July 26 2023 when the proposal was announced till November 2023 when the proposal was withdrawn. I personally would not consider that level of coverage to be significant enough coverage over an extended period of time for the subject matter. There has been no RS coverage of the issue since, something that is expected of similar topics in web privacy (see for example Client Hints, or the Privacy Sandbox both of which had similar negative pushback but has had more sustained coverage due to the fact that they were implemented in Chrome). Sohom ( talk ) 04:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: sustained coverage is not required. Subject simply does meet the WP:GNG. I would not be surprised if Google tries something like this again, we could then discuss merging it into some background section. But for now, I don't see a good merge target and think the article can stay as-is. The point of WP:SUSTAINED is that subjects that have gotten sustained coverage are more likely to be notable. But the lack of sustained coverage does not mean it is not notable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhotographyEdits (Thinking out loud here), maybe this belongs as a section to a hypothetical article on Private access tokens or as part of CAPTCHAs and Digital Rights Management? The way I see it, the article is kinda in a perma-start state, with a majority of the sourcing being first-party documentation and position documents (atleast until Google goes and messes up shit again, which I agree they will probably do, but that is also WP:CRYSTAL. Sohom ( talk ) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Coverage from Ars Technica and The Register gives in-depth analysis of the proposal and the surrounding controversy, so this passes WP: GNG. The subject has received attention over the span of several months, as the nominator has stated themselves -- if that isn't sustained coverage, I don't know what is. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Based on the comments above, (and sleeping on it a bit, and considering the validity of my own arguments) it's clear I am in the minority . Please consider this AFD withdrawn. Sohom ( talk ) 00:21, 22 June 2024 (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.