Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft, Intel and the American Government

Microsoft, Intel and the American Government

Delete from me. Just seems like propaganda to me. Somebody in the WWW 23:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Actually, is this speedyable? Jonpin 23:17, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not Delete. Although I don't agree with the idea presented in the article but it is worth mentioning because this is one of the reason, many countries like china and some European countries attempted Linux in government especially military. To reply to this Microsoft started to share the source of windows with their big clients using the term ‘shared source’. Now as Microsoft has started to shared the source with its client theory got very weak but still worth mentioning. Zain 00:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, although this rant may bounce a few echos of truth, this is a non-credible context in which to explore them. Original research, no apparent verification and as such, borders on nonsense. Unfortunately, not a speedy. Wyss 02:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• del Mikkalai 02:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This content may even belong somewhere, but not in a standalone article with a bad title. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Suggestions I think we shouldn't jump to deletion too fast without discussing! Now let me suggest in problem, response and solutions manner.

  Problem It is not true.

  Response Same is true for all Conspiracy theory articles like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but like that I think this should also not be deleted like you can find many others on 9/11 conspiracy etc but I think all are of informative value.

  Solution like the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion we should add the evidences against it. within a section of this article.

  Problem It is Copyright Material.

  Response Well it is a conspiracy theory developed in many places mentioned by many people its like calling 'Bush wired' as a copyright. Although that I also believe is lie but people may like to see it. Plus no body provided any evidences.

  Solution Source should be discovered for this. Zain 13:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, and clean it up if needed. That debate exists and cannot be relegated to Ostrichpedia, the deletionists' paradise. --Pgreenfinch 08:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I got no google hits for this title. Doesn't seem to be a notable conspiracy theory. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:42, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Links Evidence Actually this theory has many version All include Microsoft. Government agencies and Intel are some time included and some time exclude. (Government usually included and Intel usually excluded) Following are Some Links, including Chinese government only, similarly you can find links related to Germany and others. [1] It says in it "However, previous reports have said that the search for backdoors installed by national intelligence agencies is also among the aims of the agreement", [2] "governments like China fear that backdoors may be installed to leak sensitive information", [3] "Potential 'backdoor' security flaw", [4], [5], [6]. You can you several queries like [7]. The subject is pretty good but the way it is presented is pretty bad. It requires a lots of improvement. So it should be given a cleanup tag. And hope that people will come and improve it. I think that the links which I have provided are enough to remove the Delete tag. Zain 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Badly named (I think), content can be better expressed in other articles, like Microsoft or United States Government, and the Chinese government being a little paranoid is not a source, is it? That's the counter-intell's job, correct? hfool 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I have reviewed each of User:Zain's recommended links. None of them verified the existence of the conspiracy theory described in this article. Those links did establish that foreign governments (specifically, the Chinese) want the ability to investigate source code 1) for unintentional security weaknesses which could be exploited - good practice for any purchaser of software who can afford it, and 2) for deliberate backdoors inserted by or at the direction of another government. A government's reasonable precautions do not establish either that a) any such backdoors were inserted or that b) a conspiracy theory exists beyond those reasonable concerns of a sovereign nation. Network Fusion's article was the most relevant and even it described the problem as "rumor and innuendo" (3rd paragraph from the bottom). I have been unable to find independent evidence verifying the existence of this particular conspiracy theory. Delete as unverified unless further evidence is presented. Rossami (talk) 01:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I really appreciate your checking of links. Please see link number 1 again that is [8] It has a line "However, previous reports have said that the search for backdoors installed by national intelligence agencies is also among the aims of the agreement. " Actually I got intrested in this article because I have read it soo many times on different news (I used to be very eager reader of IT News). I admit it is a very badly written article. But if it gets the right editor. It will be useful. Zain 01:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Got the Right Link At Last Other links were a little indirect but Now I got very specific link from a very aunthentic source Zdnet (publisher of PC MAG) I think now it is clear I think i should add this link to that article too. Zain 02:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This link does specifically make the allegation described in the article. Changing my vote to abstain while I try to see if it's more than one columnist exercising literary license. Rossami (talk)
    • So cleanup the article with allegation matching to the link which I provided. I'll like to redirect the article to another 'to be' article, which doesn't mention intel. So it is cleanup, create and merge. of course not a delete

Zain 10:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)