Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberBerkut

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 CONCENSUS Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CyberBerkut

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not WP:N notable enough to have an article on some fly-by-night hacking team. A lot of the sources fail verification. Львівське (говорити) 07:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information contained in this article is of value and sources on a group of "hacktivists" can be very difficult. The group continues to be active and has taken credit for notable cyber actions recently. Keeping the article as is and requesting updated sources is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.4 (talk • contribs)
Delete. There are reliable sources detailing the attacks supposedly carried out by this group, but nothing which describes the group itself in any detail. We shouldn't allow the fact that the group is secretive to lower our standards for sourcing and verifiability. Would not object to a merge of any sourced content to an article detailing information war aspects of the current conflict in Ukraine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Why would we need to know more about the group itself beyond that its actions (and therefore the group) is the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources? Easily passes WP:GNG with the sources already cited and I'm finding a whole lot more. Also keep in mind the many sources not in English. Just a few that weren't already included in the article: Magyar Hirlap Online, GlobalResearch, Lithuania Tribune, inSerbia, Guardian Liberty Voice... these were in the first couple pages of ghits. This is an easy keep as far as I can see. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the modicum of coverage, but there seems to be some WP:OR going on here. It doesn't look as though anything will save the Background, Goals and Symbols sections of the article, unless the suppositions there can be tied to reliable sources. Several of the websites used for the news do not appear to meet the reliability requirements, such as the anyone edit pastebin.com, jeffreycarr.blogspot.com and news.softpedia.com (although the article by Oana Lungescu reposted by Eduard Kovacs seems legit). The editors would be better off citing the UPI and The Guardian which had similar articles. --Bejnar (talk)

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.