Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DCEETA

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DCEETA

DCEETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Previous AfD (under the name Area 58) here
• Deletion review log here

I'm nominating this for its second AfD - the first saw the article deleted, and was upheld at deletion review. However, the article has since been recreated, and is different enough that I was reluctant to CSD G4 it. An attempt has been made to produce a sourced article, but by stringing together a series of loosely-connected assertions. When the sources and associated text are examined, it becomes clear that the article is almost wholly a product of WP:OR (and especially WP:SYNTH); I see no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for disseminating the truth - I'd like to recommend that this be deleted once more, and salted. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This effort to maintain the content in userspace should probably go the same way when the AfD is closed. ALR (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

actually, that was a (draft) of the article, and the content is maintained elsewhere in cyberspace. For example, look at the copy of the Area 58 article here: [1] of course they stripped out the sources, but you can see the improvement in the DCEETA article. you may salt the earth of wikipedia, but the web will route around you Dogue (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree completely with the nom, the recent attempts have proven why it shouldn't exist. Should also be protected from recreation. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I've spent quite a lot of effort trying to encourage the originator to bring the article to a state where it can justify its existence. At present I don't believe that a single SGS is notable, the other material in the article is predominantly original research, trivia and padding. The excessive overquoting of tangential sources seeks to obfuscate the lack of substance to the article. ALR (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and salt Agree with the nom. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Axe it I thought about afding this myself, but didn't want to be that guy, so I was waiting to see if the creator would do something with the article, and that hasn't happened. TomStar810 (Talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• abstain very well, i can see the fix is in. the fact remains that the article is supported by five independant, verifiable, published sources: the New York Times, inside defense, the The US Intelligence Community, News of cosmonautics, and Deep Black. this installation is just as notable as Menwith Hill, Pine Gap, or Buckley AFB. (repeating myself since the statements remain unrefuted). "I see no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources." - did you really examine the sources before mischaracterizing them, unlike ALR? (and repeating) suppressing this article is a losing battle gentlemen, do the ends justify the means? the day of reckoning will come for us all, i hope you have better arguments prepared, than your excuses given here. Dogue (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TomStar, you would agree with ALR now, that it's not a hoax, so the reasoning behind the first deletion is false? i do wish the military cabal would follow the WP:DP. Dogue (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dogue, you really should look at this: There is no cabal! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you that was good, how about weltanshauung[2], the command style, and then swift punishment dosn't really work too well in a consensus environment.Dogue (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Area 58 read like a hoax article, and through research you have managed to turn a formally suspiciously hoax like article into a cut and past tabloid ransom note. All I am saying is that you absolutely have to clean the article up. Since you don't appear to want to do that, we are once again having an afd discussion because the article as it is now is still a far cry from being Wikipedia worthy. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

so now it's merely 'hoax like' that is the new fast delete. i take it, you have also revised your suggestion of going to peer review? i did improve the article from Area 58 to DCEETA, was it not to your satisfaction? what ransom? the ransom of public scrutiny? do you reserve the right to delete articles that do not meet your criteria? (repeating) I remain willing to revise with good faith editors, but deleting the verifiable New York Times is not a part of that. call it unauthoritative, but it printed what it printed 24 years ago; it outed this installation; it's in every reference library in the world, it is a fine reference for an article here. ALR suggestion mediation [3], here's what the mediator said:

This article is extremely controversial due to its relation to Area 51.Hereford 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Closing Statement: Douge's Article is very cited, but it is extremely poorly written. My Suggestions are: Get ride of location section (covered by the template in top right corner); Make the picture in the geography section smaller or get ride of it.; rewrite the rest to fit WP:MOS.--Hereford 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ALR proceeded to delete all the pictures, and the other sections not listed above. Dogue (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Looked at the sources, they don't support verifiability and much of it seems to me to be synthesis. So that it doesn't become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories yet again, delete it, salt it, burn it to the ground for good measure. Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Major military installations and the like should be kept, and there are enough sources to prove both the existence and the function. DGG (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We aren't debating the merits of this being a military installation, what we are debating is the fact that the article creator hasn't cleaned the article up like he was supposed to three or so months ago. If he'd done that, you and I and everyone else here wouldn't be having this conversation, but since absolutely no improvement whatsoever has occurred, and the article in its current form reads more like a tabloid-issued ransom note we are sadly left with exactly one option to compel improvement: list at afd. If you want to take on the challenging of cleaning up the article and demonstrating that it can in fact coexist here then by all means do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points, I'm unclear on what the reasoning is behind keeping military installations just because they're military installations, or what might be defined as major, particularly as this is a lodger unit within a military establishment that already has an article. It should be quite straightforward to note the existence of the site, and it's ownership, in a single paragraph of that article.

If you think this is savable then you're welcome to try, I think there are perhaps a couple of paragraphs of substantive content that appropriately represent the sources (as it stands they're significantly misrepresented or used to support specious reasoning). In trying to get to that stage I've been the subject of repeated attacks on my integrity, opined upon by others on the talk page, and a general refusal to actually engage with the various concerns that I've raised.

ALR (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Sources aren't sufficient to either meet WP:N or establish the claimed purpose of this facility per WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

why do you say that? I see the quotes from them, which say clearly this is a major installation of critical importance? What exactly do you want them to say more? DGG (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To add to what Nick's said, there is no non-trivial coverage of this facility in the sources given to back up the article content and establish notability. The author has stitched together a passing mention here, another there, and some rather vague maybe's and allegedly's, and is trying to turn it into an article; the textbook definitions of OR and synthesis. If I'd seen one source that actually discussed the facility in any depth, this would not be at AfD. I do sympathise with the author's difficulties, as one of the quotes states: "defense officials do not discuss operations at the complex". Given the (apparently deliberate) lack of information, I think an article on this subject is not possible at the present time. EyeSerene^talk 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to dogue, I've pushed quite hard on the use of qualifiers on the sources given that none of them can be authoritative on the nature or use of the site. Bamford and Richelson are both reasonably well informed, but are firmly external to the NRO so we have no assurance of how accurate they are. Similarly a russian language journal cannot be considered authoritative about the operations of an organisation that normally operates at TS codeword NOFORN.

ALR (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

i don't know what you mean by the word "authoritative", i gave you the dictionary definition: "i don't know if i would say trustworthy, but accurate definitely, the ITU confirms what the russian was saying" Dogue (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Whatever amount of auxiliary information is deemed padding or OR, the core of the article, that this is a real and notable US government installation, has substantial support from several reliable sources, as may be clearer from looking at earlier versions with more extensive quotes. John Z (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is the whole damn article is a quote - piece here, a paragraph there. I've seen first graders who have organized papers better than this, and in one of the consistently top three rated cities for lowest illiteracy in the United States that's saying a lot. I pose the same challenge to you that I do to DGG: if you think its notable then clean up the article and show the rest of us here that it can in fact look like something more than a tabloid-issued ransom note. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • the name calling is sophomoric don't you think, are you baiting the editor? what's your deadline? Dogue (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of venting on my part, but I don't see any name calling coming from me. Perhaps a difference of definition as to what name calling is prevents me from seeing this if it does in fact exist here on the page. In any event though I will head of your suggestion and remember to remain civil the next time I reply here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • you make a good point that you tend to confine the trash talk to the quality of the article, or the source material, but this is not a reason for deletion: WP:DEL#REASON there are many stub articles, did you fast delete it without reading the sources? you seem to have an idée fixe, about the suitability of this material, why? Dogue (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, I never axed the article per se, I merely nom'd the Area 58 article for deletion. I buy into the fact that the installation is notable, but the way in which the installation is presented is not in accordance with established policies or procedures. I would be willing to reconsider my stand if this article read less like a tabloid ransom note and more like one of our other military base articles, with less cutting and pasting directly from the source material and more in depth research and development from other sources. BTW, at an absolute minimum, the article will need to be renamed to stay here. Just something to consider. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Policy objections, sources fail WP:RS, facts fail WP:V, article is very POV failing WP:NPOV and conspiracy theories falls foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the article relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We have those policies for a reason and the fact it keeps returning from the dead, please lets kill it once and for all. Justin talk 09:45, 2 February 2009 (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.