Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAGEMASTER

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 merge to NSA ANT catalog. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAGEMASTER[edit]

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

Article about a ~~seemingly non-existent~~ technology. No mention of the subject in any reliable sources. ~~Possibly a hoax.~~ - Mr X 18:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck some comments that have been revealed not to be true. I'm still not sure that the coverage of this "product" in reliable sources is deep enough to merit a separate article, keeping in mind that there are ~50 such products and, with the exception of DROOPOUTJEEP, and a couple of others, detailed media coverage has been sparse. Of course, we have the primary source of the actual catalog that was leaked.- Mr X 13:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the complete lack of coverage, I'd say it's a delete on my end. The blog isn't exactly a good source and while the article asserts other sources, they don't seem to actually exist. Even if it does exist, we don't need an entry on every single codeword ever used by the NSA. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was covered by ABC News, during a slow holiday news period, and if you don't hear about it now, you'll probably hear about it in the media in January when everyone gets back to their news desks. It's a big deal. It's already starting to pick up a wave of attention as a significant highlight of respected security researcher Jacob Applebaum's keynote. And I would argue that it deserves a separate article because it stands out as distinctively different in its hacking approach to everything else revealed to date in the Snowden papers. The relevant NSA Powerpoints very much exist and so does the technology. I have added the relevant ABC News cite. CharlesSearch (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link directly to a news source that uses the word RAGEMASTER and NSA?- Mr X 19:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you show where the specific list items are notable as opposed to the list as a whole? The thing about leaked materials of this nature is that the specifics on the list rarely get attention: it's always the list as a whole that gets the attention. For example, WikiLeaks leaked several documents as a whole, but very, very few of those documents in specific are notable for their own entry. You have to have an extremely large amount of coverage to merit an article for a specific element of a leaked document. You might be able to gain enough coverage to merit an entry for the list as a whole, whether it proves to be real or not, but I doubt very seriously that you can get coverage for individual items. Even if they exist, existing is not notability, nor is notability inherited by the possible notability of the list or the definite notability of the NSA. We don't collect information on every thing that's out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a big deal", etc. Wikipedia doesn't directly assess the importance of things. It relies on whether others have made that assessment, by virtue of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Therefore, it won't help to make your own argument as to why RAGEMASTER is important. "... you'll probably hear about it in the media in January ...." If so, then it will have met Wikipedia's notability threshold and it will make sense to have an article about it. But for now, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It isn't mentioned in the ABC News source that was cited. In the one source where it appears (someone's blog), there is no coverage per se. There is just a purported spec sheet for the product, included among dozens of others. I can't even figure out why this one product, occurring near the bottom, would have caught the eye of the article's creator more than any of the others. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the lack of coverage, these days most computer monitors are connected via digital DVI or HDMI, making this 'hack' completely useless with all but the oldest computers which certainly aren't NSA-certified in any way. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is covered in several sources including Fortune (magazine). And it's supposed to be a Top secret device, which explains the lack of detail since nobody knows much about it. May also meet Wikipedia's criteria for Inherent notability -A1candidate (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's the first useful source I've seen. At least now we know this isn't a hoax. I will look into this further and see if there are other sources (it appears there are) so that this article can be kept.- Mr X 13:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrX, this covers verifiability. But not, at least by itself, notability. What's notable is that there's a 50-page catalog, perhaps, but it appears that they arbitrarily chose a few examples from the catalog to illustrate its contents. There's no obvious focus on the Ragemaster, nothing more than a one-liner about what it is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to NSA ANT catalog - It seems the catalog itself is notable, but I doubt the individual "products" are, at least now.- Mr X 14:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect Based on my earlier comments and MrX's observation that NSA ANT catalog exists, I agree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage is increasing, as CharlesSearch suggested. See here and here. groupuscule (talk) 13:16, 3 January 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.