This article was nominated for deletion on 05-05-14. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mass surveillance Low‑importance SEXINT is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The name needs to be changed, as it is a non-notable neologism, though to what? NSA Blackmail? NSA Pornography Blackmail? Is there an actual name for this program that was covered in secret documents, similar to PRISM? The whole basis that this article was undeleted is because that the content is notable, but not the name. If there is no name change, then there is no justification to keep the article, as the sole basis of undeletion is that the name would be changed to more suitable suite the topic. Tutelary (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• is there a way to find the archived discussions? I don't remember that being the cause of undeletion explicitly (not accusing you!!)/ The issue is that while changing the name is preferable there doesn't seem to be many alternatives. I also still think that that neologism is notable due to who coined it which also suggests to me that they aren't the only person who has used it. The issue seemed to be that the article was apparently about the term itself- perhaps simply ensuring the tone is informatory as to the actual programs and abuses would be the appropriate course of action? This is all assuming that the consensus wasn't explicitly 'keep, change name' of course. I just want to be sure because people went ahead and deleted the article before consensus and such. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

See the deletion review located here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#18_May_2014 that was the primary theme. The name needs to be changed. Given that it's still on everybody's watchlist, I'm trying to start a discussion on that. Tutelary (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply