Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenon (program)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenon (program)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially fails WP:A7 per the web content clause but clearly fails WP:NSOFT due to lack of significant coverage. Slightly improved by another used who de-prodded it but still nowhere near WP:GNG.  Dr Strauss   talk   14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How much effort did you put into looking for sources? I see ten in the article right now.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found a couple more sources and also this blog  which I have not added. Still falls short though, I think. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Background disclosure: It was I who contested the proposed deletion of this page three days ago, so I'm not exactly an impartial observer in this AfD. On the other hand, I am not the page's creator, nor a user of the Xenon program (apparently only certain agencies of national governments are), nor someone affiliated with the firm that designed the software, nor with any of the government agencies that use it or handle PR for it. Indeed, I had never even heard of this program until I saw its page in the WP:PRODSUM list while doing proposed deletion patrolling a few days ago.
 * Yesterday I found and added more sources; the pages's reference total is now up to 10. The Xenon program is the principal topic of over half of them. Even those that do not discuss the program at length make its notability clear. For example, from Schermer's dissertation (published as a book):
 * The application is one of the first working examples of agent technology taking over the tasks of human operators. In my opinion the impact of automated surveillance will be profound, but in this stage of the development it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions. (page 139)
 * and:
 * In the physical world cameras are only the first step towards pervasive and ubiquitous sensor networking in the public space. The  program offers us a first glimpse into the future of surveillance in the public space. The  application offers a similar glimpse into the future of online surveillance. (pages 167–168)
 * These remarks are in addition to Schermer's description of the basic functionality of Xenon on page 59.
 * The Canadian government's apologetics as to the program's impact on privacy are also important, despite being PR. They are not promotion, but a different form of PR, namely, damage control. Canada would not see a need to reassure its citizenry as to civil-liberties issues if it were not aware of potential, or actual, significant issues with negative publicity about Xenon. Clearly the Canadian government thinks Xenon is notable—and believes that many of its citizens think it notable also, and not in a good way. That same concern is mentioned, and attributed to civil-liberties experts, in several of the other sources.
 * In the next couple of days I won't have as much time as I would like to continue improving the page. I hope others will mine the source for additional text during that time. But whether they do or not, there is enough in the sources to justify a keep. Notability depends on existence of sources, not on the extent to which they are cited or used in the page at any one time.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough re the improvements. Your last statement is completely wrong though - look at WP:MUSTBESOURCES.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES is about something different, namely, claiming that sources must exist without knowing what they are. What I meant was that the ten identified sources for this topic would demonstrate its notability even if they were, for example, merely cited within this AfD discussion. For showing notability, it's not necessary for the sources to be cited in the page, let alone for all their notability-generating passages to be used in the page's text.
 * But there's a more basic problem: WP:MUSTBESOURCES is simply wrong. It's part of the essay WP:ATA, which is not policy or a guideline. And it directly contradicts the section WP:NEXIST within the guideline WP:N, which is what I'm relying on. WP:NEXIST explicitly mandates consideration of sources that are likely to exist even if they can't be located.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Must be sources" began as material that was rejected for WP:ATA because it was not policy compliant. The latest version has been co-opted by GNG-centrists, who believe that GNG should be (or is) the only sub-guideline to define "worthy of notice".  Even NEXIST has been subverted, because the title section now uses the GNG-centrist viewpoint, when what WP:N requires is evidence, not sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The only current problem here is that this AfD is still open.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As NOW sourced it meets WP:GNG. Moreover, the subject matter is important, as pervasive surveillance and intrusion (Nineteen eighty four is not just a book by George Orwell) should be chronicled and documented.  It should be included in this encyclopaedia.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Xenon received significant coverage in Wired and the Toronto Star so passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 22 October 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.