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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 cyberattacks on Georgia and Azerbaijan[edit]

2008 cyberattacks on Georgia and Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a POVFORK, in that it is part of the 2008 South Ossetia War series of articles, and it totally omits cyberattacks by Georgia on Russian infrastructure (RIA Novosti, Russia Today, etc websites were hit by cyberattacks). The substance within the article is already covered succinctly within the SO War series of articles. Russavia ^Dialogue 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is notable and sourced. Article 2008 South Ossetia War is already huge. Thus, a creation of sub-articles is welcome. One can either include cyberattacks by Georgia here or make a separate article about this.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no need for this article. The corresponding part in the main article is not too big. Please continue editing on this subject there. Wait until the section becomes too large and split then, but not sooner. And if we split, then the article should be called "Information warfare in the 2008 South Ossetia war", and include alleged actions by both sides, not just by one of them. Offliner (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - main article is 141K. Merge is impossible. In fact, more articles like this should be created to reduce the size of the main article. Think of the people who measure their modem speed in baud. WilyD 03:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge is impossible". I have to comment on this. Please compare the content of this article with the corresponding part in the main article. There isn't much difference, except that the latter is written with a much more neutral tone. We are already trying to trim the main article in all possible ways, but splitting of a three-line section only to rewrite it with a less neutral tone isn't really the way to go. Offliner (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rationale for deletion is rather lame. It is a reasonable topic for coverage with much potential for growth. Note that 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia grew into a large article and no one claimed it was a POV fork of Bronze Night. Martintg (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 102 words. Most likely not more than 1.5KB. Not a viable spinout. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article can grow, and is valid in its own right. Dream Focus (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A notable event. Garnered extensive coverage in the international media. --Kober^Talk 06:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork, mostly sourced from blogs and the like. Mayalld (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV fork on non-notable topic.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In that period even wikipedians from Georgia could'nt edit in wikipedia. It coverd also in the Hebrew newspapers. Geagea (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The website of the Government of South Ossetia was also hit by DDOS during the war. Here is the confirmation of Russia Today being hit. Here is the confirmation that RIA Novosti was hit. Given this information, and the suggestions of some editors to include attacks on Russian internet infrastructure, it should be renamed to 2008 cyberattacks on Georgia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but as the article is missing the attacks on Russia, it is obvious this is a POVFORK which was created in order to not present all sides of the story (WP:NPOV), and has a POV title in order to poison any attacks to reach NPOV. As User:DonaldDuck has quite rightly pointed out, the information on Georgia being hit by cyberattacks is already at 2008 South Ossetia War#Cyberattacks. We also have an article Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war, which is where this information should be split to (with a rename to Information war during the 2008 South Ossetia War), if it is to be split at all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Biophys's reasoning above. This article meets relevant Wikipedia criteria for notability and sourcing and should not be deleted. --Friejose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I cleaned up this article, and I note that there are numerous NPOV sources for the assertions made therein. --Friejose (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These days, cyberwars are fast becoming a routine part of life, so it's reasonable to cover them similarly to the way regular wars are covered. This gives us a ruling precedent: regular wars are commonly grouped by offensive. It would make no sense at all to, say, delete Attack on Pearl Harbor as a WP:POVFORK on the basis that it doesn't describe USA's counteroffensive in detail. There's a separate article for that, and quite rightfully so. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very POV fork, very weakly sourced, extremely POV-looking article. All sources provided make strange claims and deductions, based mostly on primary sources (i.e. sites and media being attacked). No evidence provided of attack being performed by Russian intelligence services, although the article claims so. --GreyCat (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no information in the article beyond a sentence or two, and I don't see it expanding. It is already covered in the war article. See 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia for a better article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did we start deleting article stubs? This article has much potential for expansion. Note that 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia also started out with a sentence or two. Martintg (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article starts out with a "sentence or two", including the ones that are deleted. Not a good argument. The two sentences can be merged into the larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can expand the corresponding chapter in the main article. That way it's easier for other people to keep an eye on the additions and their neutrality. Offliner (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article can be expanded to cover cyberattacks against Russian sites, or a new article can be created for that. In any case, this is a valid article subject. Everyking (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2009 (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.