Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 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]
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.