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

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
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

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.
talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting comment, given your comments at

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.

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

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
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. --

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
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
<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I suggest editors read

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.

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

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.--
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.