Talk:Cyber campaign

No unique information, not a standalone topic

This page had no unique information, no proper sources, and is not a proper stand alone topic. The concept of "time duration" = "campaign" if valid should be expounded at the main topic page, Cyberwarfare. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, for the reasons I originally redirected it. Not every rarely used term deserves a page, and this is just a WP:DICDEF. Laurdecl ^talk 08:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ~~I just reverted the redirect:~~I temporarily left the redirect as it is: let's have a proper discussion first. It should not redirect to "Cyberattack" as Laurdecl put it as it's not necessarily an attack, and it should not redirect to "Cyberwarfare" as it's not necessarily warfare. It can also refer to cyberactivism campaigns. Such campaigns include but are not constrained to social media campaigns. I think the article should either be rather short, point towards an appropriate section of an appropriate section or become a disambiguation page. --Fixuture (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://cybercampaigns.net/ is not a suitable source, and is not even a suitable external link. A search on the topic description convinces me that there should be no such stand alone article, and attempts to build one, as you did, results in either content forking or WP:OR. Precisely which mainspace article is the best redirect target is a fair question, and the best answer may depend on you, and where you seek to describe this concept. If no single article is suitable, better to delete and have the Wikipedia search engine invoked when someone tries to load the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dab

User:Fixuture this doesn't appear to me like a valid dab, so I've tagged as needing cleanup. It was previously redirected to Cyberwarfare by User:SmokeyJoe. That seems better than redirecting to Cyberattack. I second SmokeyJoe. Widefox; talk 12:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: In my comment above I outlined why I think that this redirect would be inappropriate. Namely cyber campaigns aren't necessarily "cyberwarfare". For instance they can also be political campaigns or social media campaigns etc. I also think that Cyberwarfare would be more appropriate than redirecting to cyberattack but the dab should make it very clear how cyberwarfare is just one of multiple things this can refer to (and note that in some cases, not all, it can refer to mergings of multiple of those − including any of the ones listed with ordinary or irregular cyberwarfare). I don't think that WP:TOOSOON applies to the dab. --Fixuture (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixuture: yes it's a dict def wikt:cybercampaign per the other editors. The fact that the word is used in articles doesn't mean we should have a dab and an entry for each WP:DABMENTION. I'd be against that. A soft redirect to wikt seems best.

Done, what you think?... Widefox; talk 00:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus for that, then the next hurdle would be deleting Cyber campaign (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 00:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: I don't support that but a dab. But I also don't oppose this resolution, especially when considering WP:TOOSOON. A dab or an article might be created at a later point. --Fixuture (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good dab, and I don't see it becoming one anytime soon, but if you want more opinions put a note into the dab project. TOOSOON does not apply to a dab - it's not an article. If it was synonymous with an article (or more than one) then a redirect (or dab) would be right, but a campaign on the Internet is just that, and not an alternative title for any of these. I can't see the others above objecting per their comments above. Either way - a soft redirect or redirect, the dab " (disambiguation)" redirect is not needed anymore. Widefox; talk 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]