Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination)

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian influence operations in Estonia

This is WP:SYNTH. The article name is in violation of WP:NPOV (because there is no proof of any such "influence operations"). No source has been provided for the claims in the lead, although they have been fact-tagged for a long time and this has been requested many times. There are no similar articles in WP either (there is no American influence operations in Pakistan or American influence operations in (name your country). If this material should be in Wikipedia at all, it belongs to Estonia-Russia relations, not in a POV article such as this. Offliner (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too synthy. JBsupreme (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found a source for the lead that verifies the Estonian Security Police have analyzed and reported upon these influence activities. In fact, I'd be inclined to rename the article Russian information war against Estonia, since this is how the Estonian security police characterizes it in their annual report, and that view seems to be confirmed by various scholarly sources and news sources, which places the recent cyber attacks as one element of a wider information war. I suppose the aim of any "information war" is to influence. I don't think the name violates NPOV; it complies with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events), as it provides the where and the what. --203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is reasonably well cited (considering how short the article is, even very well cited) and describing a phenomenon worth its own article. Nominator claims it is "POV article" without bringing any contradicting sources, that is not a reason for deletion - neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Sander Säde 06:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at your comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. Two of them are especially interesting...firstly...Handpicking one-sided sources, including fringe positions, excluding relevant (and sourced) comments from the original section. Even the name of the article is a clear violation of NPOV, the underlying principle of all Wikipedia...funny that I have now gone and attributed opinions, and they are all the opinions of the Estonian Security Police...you again used the same comment with...Right now all the sources in the article are cherry-picked to represent a certain POV. How is it that you can vote delete in that AfD, yet vote keep in this article? Especially given that the article that you voted delete was even more well sourced, and included a whole-host of sources which weren't from the Estonian secret police. Is that WP:NOTADVOCATE I smell in the air? --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. The material is indeed reasonably well-cited, but it should not be presented as a POV fork under a POV title. Merge what is mergeable into Estonia–Russia relations or whatever, but in this form it does not belong.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:55, August 3, 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Adequately sourced, there's nothing "POV" about the subject matter itself (particularly since it's well sourced) and the topic is sufficiently different from Estonia-Russia relations to merit its own article.radek (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment, given your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which comment are you referring to? The "per nom"? And what's interesting about it or any other one? That one was a POV fork. This one's not.radek (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can one seriously write that it isn't a POV fork. It is a jumble of allegations from the Estonian secret police, on a range of issues which one can find in Category:Estonia–Russia relations, and thrown together with some other WP:SYN material, to form an article which attempts to prove that there is Russian influence operations in Estonia. That is a textbook definition of a WP:POVFORK, and also WP:NOTADVOCATE - since when have we been a place for the Estonian government to disseminate it's propaganda? --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no personal rant against post-communist Russia, but the sources suggest present day Russia is not completely successful in elemitating previous communist practices. Joklolk (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep. The article has an air of POV that may not pass the smell test - it needs to be worked on. But the topic is unfortunately real (see eg. 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia) and substantial enough for an article. This AfD seems to pass, perhaps the nominator will spare us for third nomination. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This is a hopeless piece of rubbish that should be expunged from WP, as per User:Ezhiki. The article over-utilises sources originating from the Estonian KGB, and is used as a WP:SOAPBOX for their political aims. Read the opening sentence. "Russian influence operations in Estonia form a complex system of financial, political, economic and espionage activities in Republic of Estonia for the purposes of influencing Estonia's political and economic decisions in ways considered favourable to Russian Federation and conducted under the doctrine of near abroad." According to whom? The Estonian KGB? Look at the article headings - Cultivation of hatred? WTF is this? An encyclopaedia or an avenue for every person with their own grudge to utilise to push their political aims. The editor directly above me has mentioned 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia as an example; read the article, and one will plainly see that after all the accusations that were flung, the Estonian government finally admitted that they had no actual evidence of Russian government involvement; but it's the usual thing; fling enough shit, do it early and do it often, and people will believe it, and they will not mention the articles printed on Page 54 of the newspaper squeezed in between an advert for baby nappies and diarrhoea medication. What is abso-f'cking-lutely hilarious is that the majority of the article deals with Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, which low-and-behold was merged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. So instead of having an article dealing with that issue directly, we hide it in amongst another article, and then create another article dealing with the issue, except now we use it as evidence of actual (that's what is presented in the article) Russian influence operations in Estonia? You have to be f'ing kidding me. Merge any salvageable content to Estonia–Russia relations and delete. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tone down the language. Kaitsepolitsei is hardly "Estonian KGB", it is normal security agency as it exists in every country in the world. Using such ethnically loaded and highly explicit expressions is hardly suitable for Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the FSB being called the KGB all the time, and as Kapo is security police, and given its history, it is apt to call it the Estonian KGB. Nothing ethnically loaded about that. Is that all there is to respond to in relation to my merge/delete comments? Because there is plenty to comment on, so let's not get sidetracked with semantics. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FSB is officially the successor of KGB, if you remember. But what do you dislike about Kapo's history - or are you buying the nutcase theory of Kapo existing during German occupation? --Sander Säde 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per Russavia. The article's sources are the Kaitsepolitsei, an agency of a state in political conflict with Russia. The rest is essentially WP:SYNTH. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo The first nomination just last May. Let's wait for new ideas. Peltimikko (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the title is POV, move the article to a better title: we don't delete entire articles because of disputes over what to name them. A WP:OTHERSTUFF argument has no bearing on whether to keep or delete this article. Article is well-cited. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest editors read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, and the comments by the closing admin. Given that the entire premise of the article is based upon allegations by the Estonian secret police (with a couple of editors removing ANY and ALL references to the words alleged in an attempt to portray the allegations as a matter of fact...talk about advocacy), without providing a shred of evidence to back up the claims, then it is a perfect example of a WP:POVFORK. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the article is based upon "allegations" is one which you tried to introduce into the article in violation of a Wikipedia guideline. Contravening a wiki guideline and then giving it as a reason for deletion is ... well, not a good reason for deletion.radek (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not in violation of WP policies and guidelines. It is exactly why in the Alexander Litvinenko article it states "In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile.[66] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia." as opposed to the same statement without alleged, because there is absolutely ZERO evidence put forward to demonstrate it is true. And the same reason that alleged needs to be placed on the article, because all we have is allegations of the Estonian KGB, without a shred of evidence to back up their statements. But hey, let's start Glorification of Nazism and fascism in the Estonian states and see how quick editors such as yourself will run to it in order to present them only as allegations, rather than matters of fact, which is what is happening in this article. It is yet another attempt at advocacy on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be expunged. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems well referenced. If it is POVed, fix the article, don't delete it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides IDONTLIKEIT, I do not see a reason for deletion of a well-referenced article. Please note that Wikipedia is not created for the sake of the editors, but for the people who look for knowledge. And this article describes little-known, yet valid topic. Tymek (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well referenced and a notable aspect of Russia's information war against Estonia. I seem to detect a new campaign of Russia-image-spiffing, but that's another topic. VЄСRUМВА ☎ 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please explain, why exacly is this 10.8 KB article – with over 20 references – being nominated for deletion already second time around. That fact alone strikes me as really odd. --Poeticbent talk 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid sister article of Russia-Estonian relations. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. original synthesis, magnet for warriors. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- valid article.--Jacurek (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid representation of event. Buckshot06(prof) 01:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an original research, but a valid review of the subject.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 9 August 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.