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 keep. Well if "Sputnik13" assures us that there is no way that the Russian government would ever engage in cyberwarfare, then we'd better believe it, da, tovarich? But everybody else thinks that we should base our articles on what reliable sources write, and I agree. I'm dismissing this deletion request because it does not articulate a policy-based reason for deletion and is supported by nobody else. Sandstein 16:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Good day! This article has obvious signs of political propaganda and breaks the rules
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There are just some random cyberattacks news with criminal background listed. There are no evidences of links to Russian government. There are only theories and political accusations
Sputnik13 (
talk) 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep/merge Cyberwarfare is clearly a thing nowadays. We have several articles about it including
Cyberwarfare by Russia;
December 2015 Ukraine power grid cyberattack;
2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine and so on. The page in question has plenty of sources and so its contents shoud be retained per our policy
WP:PRESERVE. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per policy
WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
Andrew🐉(
talk) 12:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete "Neutral point of view" is a key point here. As long as there are no evidences you can not just accuse someone. Editing will not help, there are no basis here, just propaganda. Another point, Ukraine or Russia are both officially not in a war state. So no reason to talk about war.--
Sputnik13 (
talk) 13:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:DISCUSSAFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." I have therefore struck the redundant bold !vote.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 17:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
What we need is evidence that respectable people are talking about the topic. Here's
an example. My !vote stands.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 14:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Talking is not enough, this is not a blog or forum, this is Encyklopedia. Please check again
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Evidences are proved facts and not theories and random hacker attacks, which happen every single day.--
Sputnik13 (
talk) 17:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the link btw. Have you read this article? Even the author writes that no attacks on any infrastructure or something like this were noted. Page 41 paragraph 3.--
Sputnik13 (
talk) 17:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
On that p41, the author (
James Andrew Lewis) says "Russia has used its cyber capabilities primarily for political coercion, opinion-shaping, and intelligence gathering, ..." I suppose that includes editing Wikipedia too, eh? My !vote stands.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 17:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
War and attempts to some influences are pretty different things. And this is definitely not a topic of this article.--
Sputnik13 (
talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a hugely notable and well sourced subject. The subject of
Cyberwarfare by Russia is becoming so big that making some subpages is reasonable. But this is not even a sub-page of Cyberwarfare by Russia. This is a page about mutual cyberwarfare between two countries. There will be more such pages in the future.
My very best wishes (
talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (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.