Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads

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 DELETED as an attack page and highly speculative original research, all wrapped up in one. I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet troll squads

Internet troll squads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research devised from two tangentially related articles. Essentially an attack page against Putin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

<Lengthy comment moved to talk preserving order> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either, so the sources really mean nothing to me. If its not a joke, perhaps Merge with Troll (Internet)Gelston 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. -- Pious7 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The sources are in english Whoops, confused this with a different russian language article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete - Original research.--Tom 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Except for being hoax, original research, and the term "troll squads" being coined by Biophys - the author of this article, this article was created by him in order to defame and slander me and Alex Bakharev. Please see the evidence here "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" Vlad fedorov 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (I am creator of this article). First, this is obviously not OR, which is claimed as the reason for deletion. Everything is taken from the sources. Article is based on a single reliable source at least four reliable sources now (see my reply below - "Thank you"), which is perfectly consitent with Wikipedia policies. Second, English translation of main source has been provided in the article. See: [1]. So, could you please read this translation, and then decide if the subject is a "hoax" and notable. As explained on talk page, this is a reliable source. Third, this article say nothing personal about Putin except that FSB workers admire him (which is probably true). So, this is not attack against Putin. Finally, this article has not been created to accuse Wikipedia editors. I planned to create it long time ago, as anyone can see looking at my personal page User:Biophys#Links_and_notes and Talk:Persecution_of_political_bloggers#English_translation_of_Russian_article_about_.22Internet_troll_squads.22 where the same source has been used. Further, I have never made any personal accusations of that kind. If someone else did, this is not my problem. The subject about "FSB trolls in Wikipedia" was opened by an anonymous user in talk page FSB, so I have mostly reacted on that. I also did not want people to discuss accusations not related to me at my talk page. Biophys 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - POV/OR. FCYTravis 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited as is required. Probable OR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - first of all, if this article was alone, it would probably only just be a weak delete; while there is one source provided, it does not back up any claim this this is either a notable or even realistic problem. Furthermore, this article appears to be some kind of personal vendetta the creator has against another Wikipedian - in my books, that's WP:POINT. --Haemo 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's surely a conspiracy theory. ellol 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply.. If it's surely a conspiracy theory, then you must have some proof that it is right? CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. I feel that while it is a good article, it needs more sources to cite for it to be as reliable as people want.CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep I take back my delete vote, and now vote keep, as the article cites many more sources, and has been cleaned up greatly since creation. CPTGbr 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete. OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition. --Irpen 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. The phenomena is real, but the name seems to be ORish. The new name should be Interned disinformation by Russian intelligence agencies or such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete, WP:CSD G10, WP:BLP. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename and Source //Halibutt 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The best solution in these circumstances is to expand the article and add sources. Appleseed (Talk) 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to the case of disinformation by InoSMI shown in the bottom of the article, I can't help but notice the abundance of impersonation and disinformation attacks against Russian opposition figures. See the statement by Yevgenia Albats who discovered an article published under her name [2], computer translation. The Troll (Internet) article did not mention PhD researchers in its references. I believe the troll squads article is not an original research because it summarizes the referenced exhibits and analysis. If the article's neutrality is disputed, counter-arguments should be added to the article instead of deleting it. ilgiz 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you present the evidence in support of your statements and in support of your linking of these allegations with specifically internet troll squads. Do you have the evidence that Yevgenia Albats was harassed exactly by internet troll squads and why do you have such infromation? Vlad fedorov 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this original research. Let me politely ask our Polish friends to leave Russia-articles to the responsibility of Russian editors. I presume the latter know more about Russia than the former. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

<Lengthy discussion moved to talk preserving order> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOR. >Radiant< 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as WP:OR and possible attack page. We have enough "conspiracy" pages to deal with already, let's not repeat the same mistakes. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<Another lengthy discussion moved to talk. Mr.Biophys, you won't promote your cause by abusing the voting section guidelines> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nominator, Pious7, NYC JD and everybody else. --Pan Gerwazy 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Piotrus, but widen the scope and develop to WP standards. Not hoax, reflects real phenomena and may be referred to some external links. No exceptional concentration on Russia of course. Ukrained 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you! Thank you all for your participation and discussion of my article. This helped to improve it a lot. It was nominated for deletion as WP:OR. Now it is not OR and based on multiple sources. This is obvious from the current list of references. No one of this discussion participants challenged the reliability of any specific references on any reasonable grounds. Most of you criticized the title. Great. Then let's rename it as "Internet teams of Russian state security services" (almost as suggested by Pyotrus). I have made the corresponding changes in the text, but I do not want to move the article during AfD discussion. If you disagree with such title, let's mark this article as WP:RM and discuss a better title (wrong title can not be a reason for deletion). Finally, the AfD nominator believed that the article is "an attack page against Putin". Obviously, it is not, since there is only one mention of Putin in this article as a third party.Biophys 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possibly OR.--Aldux 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I received an unsolicited e-mail apparently from Ukrained, asking me to participate in this. I'm not sure if he only sent this request to me, or to many people. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclusively to you Mr. Quadell :). By the way, you'd better write nothing if you "don't know": pelase don't litter voting with hardly-relevant comments. Thanks, Ukrained 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a note that the vote might be affected by behind the scenes canvassing is highly relevant both for the vote and for the ethics of some involved. --Irpen 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Only if one can prove this. BTW, remember that this is not a referendum, what counts here is argumentation rather than number of votes. Colchicum 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you saying there is no proof of canvassing? --Irpen 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep doesn't seem to be OR, well known facts --Monk 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep LUCPOL 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Very known phenomena in Russian Internet. See also article in Russian Wikipedia ru:Веб-бригады. --Yakudza 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:POINT and WP:OR. --Kuban Cossack 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article lists several trustworthy sources that describe an Internet phenomenon. Andrew Alexander 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is similar to Censorship in China regarding what the government could do.. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment is anyone able to translate the foreign language sources? - Denny 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and lock, this is a ridiculous attack piece. If it by some chance isn't an outright hoax, there has to be some better name it can hold and it will need rewritten from the ground up regardless. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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.