Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedHack

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RedHack[edit]

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

Dubious subject with wording that implies COI. Sources are similar and likely partisan. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may well be that recent additions were the work of someone with a COI but there's no way to prove that at this stage and it wouldn't really have any impact here anyway - COI is not a reason for deletion. The "see also" lists could be cut right back and there's some ref-spamming going on. But I think there are enough sources to substantiate notability in this instance:

Hackers RedHack Leak Details of Hundreds of Turkish Government Officials
RedHack ‘hacks’ Turkish police website as border traffic grounds to a halt
‘Terrorist organization’? Turkish hackers face quarter-century prison terms
Redhack accused of ties with Gulenist infiltrators
Turkish actor accused of being RedHack member released by court
Turkish hacker group RedHack reveals gendarmerie's Reyhanlı attack document: Claim

I can't see anything particularly partisan there - almost all are commercial news sources including some international sources. The article needs work but that's not the purpose of AFD. WP:MOS issues can be resolved through normal editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I agree with [User:Stalwart111]]. This article has been edited by close to 20 different registered users, including at least one administrator. There is a lack of conformance to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but that's not a reason for a deletion discussion. It has a plethora of cites. (I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a 'Marxst-Lenninist' hacker group, but that's a problem that can be solved by a text elaboration). WP:COI, that's hard to discern, considering there's been 20 or so registered editors and not an argument for an AfD. And how can any article be a dubious subject? What does that even mean? 'Partisan'? Does that mean WP:POV? That's not a reason for an AfD; besides, who can tell with this article - it has not been developed enough. Keep, and sort it all out by WP:BRD, not drive by tagging. - Neonorange (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs to be abridged somewhat, but there is no reason at all for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again, Google is my friend: it was not difficult to find plenty of references to this group, though I certainly had to wade my way through a lot of social networking and self-published sites along the way. They appear to be fairly obviously notable (though I'd not let any of them near my computer!). The editor who proposed this deletion has clearly not done his homework. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources already cited establish notability; there are a variety of sources, and of English articles I read, I just don't see a partisan bias. Specific issues of concern (conflict of interest or partisan sources) in the article should be handled through the normal editing process, not through article deletion, according to AfD guidelines at WP:BEFORE. Agyle (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2014 (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.