Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Titstorm

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 speedy keep. Nominator indef blocked, no other delete votes NW (Talk) 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Titstorm[edit]

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

There are hundreds of operations made by Anonymous, and hardly any of them, with the exception of Project Chanilogy, are notable. I feel this article just gives recognition to a bunch of trolls and violates WP:NOT and rather just promotes their intentions. ☭FryPod 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well whether or not it gives recognition to trolls of people you don't like is irrelevent. It appears to have a lot of third party sources, although I would say it is a fairly unotable event and has a heavy weighting of online sources due to its very nature. Jolly Ω Janner 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The amount of sources shows that it received significant enough coverage to warrant an article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jenks24. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - alas, whether we like it or not, notability is demonstrated by the sources. Frank | talk 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This received a lot of coverage in reliable sources. The article does a good job of presenting that coverage in a neutral way. The subject is notable and the article does not violate any policies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSignificant worldwide coverage. Although notability is not temporary, there is even a little ongoing coverage with a mention in Time. The government being attacked (regardless if it was cyber based and who perpetrated it) is a notable event that even received an official response. This article is also part of multiple topics and not just Anonymous. Internet legislation, real wold demonstrations (although tiny), computer crime, and so on. As the editor who created it, I made an effort to not make it overly pushy or scandalous. I think I was successful at not glorifying trolls. I was going to create an article for the follow-up IRL demonstrations but they were so not notable on their own that I merged it in. It was even rated B class by another editor but was downgraded since the lead was too short (I just expanded it). Google scholar shows a result. Academics from the University of Nebraska at Omaha included it in a presentation and paper. Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, there are reliable sources, the article is well-written and neutral in tone. And Wikipedia is not censored. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -Welhaven (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable , well sourced, numerous articles used as references. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2010 (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.