Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 KM.RU and Nival Networks data breaches


 * 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 delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 KM.RU and Nival Networks data breaches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable event, of no widespread impact or notice. Calton | Talk 15:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the redirect Cyber Anakin (hacktivist) should go. See Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin. --Calton | Talk 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or Transwiki into Wikiversity From WP:Event the event do fit the following criterias:

WP:GEOSCOPE Vice Motherboard, which first reported the event, is an American news magazine. News.com.au has mirrored the coverage, providing wide geographical scope to the event.

http://news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/teen-cyber-anakin-hacker-wants-revenge-on-russia-after-the-mh17-crash/news-story/bb2eecdc37c54f2b5b3800dd26ef4caf

Update: I have found a lot of mirrored coverage done by Chinese and Indonesian news providers, expanding the geographical scope of the original Motherboard coverage. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:DEPTH The original Vice Motherboard article has an in depth coverage about the event itself, ranging from the motive of the hacker to the analysis of the breaches.
 * http://bobao.360.cn/news/detail/2808.html
 * http://www.suara.com/news/2016/03/05/164732/balaskan-dendam-korban-mh17-peretas-ini-ancam-bobol-situs-rusia
 * http://beritajatim.com/internasional/261202/dendam_kasus_pesawat_mh17,_situs_rusia_dibobol.html

WP:PERSISTENCE I have came across cybersecurity case studies citing the event as a case study.

Links to these case studies: https://www.elevenpaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Breaches-2016_T1_EN_v1.0.pdf and https://issuu.com/assumptioncollege/docs/infosecurityalert_sept2016

WP:PERSISTENCE said that "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." I fully believe that the event fits the description.

WP:DIVERSE At least two reliable sources has provided their own take on the coverage. One is Vice Motherboard which is obviously a news provider, cyberinsurance.com is a data breach notification service which also provides their own take of news coverage on whatever data breaches they came across or detect.
 * Update: Regarding the case study, I have found more of these on the Internet. It is interesting to note that one of the case study is Chinese, which helped expand the geographic scope of the awareness of the incident.
 * http://www.86nsn.com/uEditor/UploadFile/201638165754699.pdf
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have found a case study report from the CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) of the Czech Republic. The case study report mentioned the event. I firmly believe that this will boost the WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE aspects of the case that supports the retention of this article. https://www.govcert.cz/download/bulletiny/container-nodeid-1167/nckb-bulletin-1603.docx Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am giving a score of 4 out of 5 main criterias, and from my analysis I do fully believe that the event met a bare mininum requirement for inclusion as an article. Thank you.

(Originally posted in the article's talk page)

Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Small note: User:CapitalSasha was the newpage patroller who gave the inclusion of this article a green light. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My argument against Calton's nomination reason #1: With the analysis of the criterias, specifically regarding the WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE, I firmly believe that the "of no widespread impact or notice" part of the initial nomination reason put forward by Calton is a moot. By being mirrored by multiple news writers across the globe (USA, Australia, Indonesia, China) and being cited as case study by multiple sources which ranged from a Spanish telecommunications company "Telefonica" to the Czech CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team), you should see that the said last part of Calton's initial nomination reason does not accurately reflect the reality. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My argument against Calton's nomination reason #2: As for the first part of Calton's nomination reason which is "Non-notable event", in order to defend my case, I have to delve into the Oxford dictionary and focus on it's interpretation of "notable".


 * https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/notable


 * From the dictionary itself, the word is an adjective whose definition is Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable . Note that I emphasized the or word inside the definition to avoid any people here from confusing or misinterpreting the meaning to Worthy of attention and notice; remarkable. Based on the definition and taking account with the uniqueness argument that I've made at the bottom of the page and most importantly, the fact that the event has been reported by a news magazine and multiple news reporters, who has noticed the initial Motherboard coverage, decided to spread the information and the notice of the incident by mirroring the Motherboard coverage, which in turn will arouse the notice of readers beyond the pool of readers who read only VICE Motherboard, therefore fulfilling the most lenient interpretation of WP:GEOSCOPE at least. Besides that, this event has been cited in multiple case study reports ranging from a telco company to a national CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team), which is an evidence that these entities has noticed the incident and decided to spread the information and the notice of the event further to the readers of their case report by including them into the concerning case study report, and fulfilling the description that "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." as outlined in WP:PERSISTENCE. Again from the definition, if the event itself is indeed not worthy of notice, then it is safe to assume that the Motherboard news coverage will not be mirrored by other reporters including news.com.au and the event would not be mentioned in the case reports, including the case report that is as authoritative as that of Czech national CERT. I personally think that if the event is indeed unworthy of notice, the Motherboard reporter who first broke the news would treat the event just as an routine aberration and chose not to waste time to cover the news at the very very first place. In summary, from my argument, I fully believe that Calton's nomination reason that the article is based on 'Non-notable event, of no widespread impact or notice.' does not accurately reflect the reality and thus resembles more like a baseless accusation. I rest my case for now. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Important update: I just found that I am a WP:Inclusionism regarding this matter. I hereby base my premise on keeping this article with every single Inclusionist arguments that I found here, in addition to my DIY arguments that I've outlined on this AfD a while ago.
 * You're not an inclusionist -- a, frankly, stupid term to begin with -- but an SPA, a single-purpose account for whom EVERY SINGLE EDIT IN YOUR WIKIPEDIA HISTORY has to do with inflating the importance of a single obscure script kiddy. And it seems glaringly obvious that it's you. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's called niche interest, boy. I said at the last time that I am focusing on a single subject just to prevent this kind of Greek drama. For the last time I have to reiterate that I used to fix the typos by IP. Sounds a bit ironic. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PA at its finest Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, forgot to mention that you are living in Japan apparently. We're kind on a same boat now ;) Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You know why? Face based culture where failures are not tolerated. I mentioned this a while ago in a talk page to Coltsfan. I and him also discussed about the inherent instability of human nature shortly before an admin closed the previous AfD.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to consider the possible fact that WP:Deletionism is now dominating the discussion now, so if the consensus turns against me, I may opt to transition the article to Wikiversity instead, where collaboration instead of endless arguments about keep and delete is permeating its atmosphere. Makes sense for me to warn any potential first time article creators about this to prepare for this kind of nasty politics.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a bad feeling that the Wikipedia project is going to be turned into a Britannica 2.0 because hardcore WP:deletionism like Calton is gaining more and more ground as time passes. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Look at the sources. Lots of "claims" "perhaps" "maybes". The notability was successfully questioned during the discussion of the article Cyber Anakin. The lacking of notability is the same here. Coltsfan (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The position of the three words mentioned by coltsfan has to be taken into account since it would affect the context if not done properly. For example, the word "claim" in the article references the alleged connection between the hacker and a relative/friend of a MH17 victim, not the database intrusion itself.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Please don't confuse the notability criteria of a living person article with that of an event article.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP and WP:EVENT are two different things Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and selectively merge Even the article creator/defender admits that all the reliable source coverage amounts to a single Motherboard piece being "mirrored." So aside from that, I don't see this as passing WP:SIGCOV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At the same time, I don't see why we couldn't also selective merge to List of data breaches.  I've modified my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I think for the sake of this discussion, it's time to better set aside debating about shibboleths on how to define and interpret 'significant', 'notoriety', and so on and focus on the core reasons that drove me to create a page for the event and for the case that defends the event's existence as a stub article. Everyone may see this matter differently due to their interpretations and opinions. Some might advocate keep, some might advocate delete, and some might propose somewhere between the two and so on. But there's one overlooked attribute that it seems that only I and some other people (possibly including the new page patroller User:CapitalSasha who gave the green light for the event to be included as a stub article at the first place) are noticing. It's about uniqueness of the event itself. Aside from the KM.RU and Nival incident, I can't find any signs that showed that another computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident had taken place. I have tried in vain finding another hacking event with the similar attribute, for example, US entities gets hacked because the hacker's motive is mainly about avenging Iran Air 655, Russian entities gets hacked because of avenging KAL007, and so on. I suggest all people who is looking to take down the article to carry the burden of proof and use Google to find any and all signs of another "computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident". So far I have found only one computer hacking event which fits into the said unique attribute and therefore made it to stand out from the rest of the usual and routine hacking incidents. The attribute is what lifted the event covered by the article from a large pool of hacking events. From my legwork and conclusion, I am 99.9% sure that the KM.RU and Nival breaches event is the first instance of a computer hacking incident whose actual or alleged motive is directly related to the avenging of a civilian airliner shootdown incident and therefore warrants enough uniqueness to stand out from the rest of the hacking incidents. Thank you Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am 99.9% sure... It's a meaningless "first", even if true, but do you have any ACTUAL evidence of that? "Because I said so" is not a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making me to consider Wikiversity as a transwiki target. I've modified the position now ;) Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment:  I have to delve into the Oxford dictionary and focus on it's interpretation of "notable"...


 * Who cares? Wikipedia doesn't use a dictionary definition, it uses its own: WP:NOTABLE. So everything you wrote is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 06:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on who. There's one thing we could agree upon, that is the WP:deletionism will not care just as you. Happy New Year 2017. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't depend on whom: Wikipedia follows its own guidelines, not some self-serving junk you've whipped up, so unless you actually use Wikipedia's standards, no editor -- and I mean NONE -- will be convinced. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's only your opinion, I can take note of that. Are you psychologically projecting yourself into other people? Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is more analogous to a scenario where a brain cancer patient is beheaded in attempt to cure the brain cancer. This is super lame.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Article is being listed on rescue list. Good luck. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete - despite the rather nebulous comments above, this is not a notable event. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I never !voted on this, as I was the one who advised the author to create it during his disruptive behaviour at Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin. However, after reviewing the very few sources that are available on this, it is clear that there is not enough for an article. This is a minor one-time event, if it really did happen, and not significant. Furthermore, the author has now been blocked for his disruptive behaviour, and so this can probably be closed speedily. Brad  v  15:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.