Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMMONDEER

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONDEER

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not understand what this article is about. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand what the talk that is current sole reference for this article is about? WP:CIR. Please, feel free to watch it or read the linked articles and improve the article. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current page content:

COMMONDEER is NSA tech for commandeering (See pwn) untargeted <sic> computer systems. It is considered tyrannicall by Jacob Appelbaum. ^[1]

^ Error:No page id specified on YouTube

*Keep for now, for the reasons best expressed at WP:CHANCE, without prejudice to renominating for deletion in the very near future. The article was only up for 20 minutes before the AFD request. If it still looked like this after a week, or even a couple days, I'd have !voted "delete", but this is too soon. From what I can find, it doesn't pass WP:GNG, but I think more than 20 minutes is warranted. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It may have been misspelled in Jacob Appelbaum's slide. COMMENDEER is the spelling at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/31/nsa_weapons_catalogue_promises_pwnage_at_the_speed_of_light/ Also, nothing turns up under the "(Find sources:" links at the top of this section. They didn't find this; it was the first hit when I googled "QUANTUMNATION NSA COMMENDEER" and it uses the 'COMMANDEER' spelling (variant 3). --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL!

Is there any wp:significant coverage in those sources? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Expanded sources. Requested move.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me some examples of significant coverage in reliable sources? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are (youtu.be/pbgYx5fJjj8) bot-like. RTFA. What part of "Expanded sources. " and "Please, feel free to watch it or read the linked articles" do you not understand?--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read the two articles, and I didn't find any significant coverage. They just mention this subject in passing. And the George Harrison song (youtu.be/pbgYx5fJjj8) does not help either. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition and not appropriate for WP,--Rpclod (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per WP:CHANCE. No prejudice against a later AfD or transwikification. Basically, what TJRC said. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 07:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>>>I didn't find any significant coverage". Holy shit. Competence is required. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd been a "Keep", earlier, based on WP:CHANCE. At that time, the article has been AFDed after only 20 minutes, and I noted "If it still looked like this after a week, or even a couple days, I'd have !voted 'delete'". At this point, because of the relisting, it's been two weeks, and there really isn't any substantial improvement indicating that it passes GNG.

Both non-video references are mere passing mentions in news stories, not indications of notability. The Register article mentions it in a single phrase in part of one sentence "For computers and networks that have firewalls and other security systems in place, the NSA uses QUANTUMNATION, a tool that will scan defenses using software dubbed VALIDATOR to find an exploitable hole, and then use it to seize control using code dubbed COMMENDEER." The dailytech blog entry says only "Then there's QUANTUMNATION, which includes memory-injection style software attack tools VALIDATOR and COMMANDEER", then spends another couple of sentences characterizing those two tools, without detail. The video itself is a ~60-second segment (at about 27:50) discussing one half-line item on one slide of a presentation, without substantial detail; certainly no more detail than in the other two sources.

Since WP:CHANCE no longer applies, and the article still, in my judgment, does not meet GNG after two weeks, I'm changing to Delete. TJRC (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to another article about similar NSA tools or programs. As it currently stands, the two non-primary sources cited in the article only mention the software briefly in passing, which means it fails WP:N. Sandstein 08:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—After quite a bit of googling, there's just not enough in the way of secondary sources to warrant an article. Changing from keep to delete. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1]