Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers


 * 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 consensus. Due to lack of new participation and due to a lack of consensus on the suitability of the sources. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails general notability guidelines. Sources are unreliable. — Yahya ( talk  •  contribs. ) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Yahya  ( talk  •  contribs. ) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Yahya  ( talk  •  contribs. ) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:Dear Yahya Please note that Hacker's are not favorable, so they can't have or be in websites that we rely on. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to have an article on Wikipedia, there should be minimum coverage in reliable newspapers to pass GNG. — Yahya ( talk  •  contribs. ) 00:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep some of the external links look like mainstream media with reliable significant coverage. I am uncertain how to evaluate some of the foreign language sources. Without a more detailed source analysis from the nominator I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources:      Greatder (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain how those links contribute to the notability of this topic. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * DW.com is considered reliable by consensus(even though I don't like to use their slide articles). And you can't expect everyone to get a 20 minute analysis report, the group was also covered by BBC. I did not see where this computer barta is though. Greatder (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no BBC source there, and the Deutsche Welle article says explicitly that it's repeating WP:USERGENERATED content. That's not independent coverage as described in the WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the BBC source in the article, the dw article is reviewed by editor দেবারতি গুহ and written by আরাফাতুল ইসলাম, and is not user generated content. Greatder (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete When evaluating sources we must consider not just the publisher, but also the author and the content. Except for Computer Barta (which puts other media reports in context, reports government reaction, and interviews three local computer experts), the sources merely uncritically repeat what has been posted (supposedly by the organiztion) on webpages that Wikipedia doesn't consider reliable sources, such as a Facebook fan page. The resulting articles are not reliable, not independent, and not secondary. Contrast them with the in-depth independent analysis of hacker group Anonymous in a source like . As explained in WP:WHYN, without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, we can't write an article that is complete, that doesn't contain rumor or gossip, and that is fair, balanced, and not promotional. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DW.com is considered reliable by consensus(even though I don't like to use their slide articles). And you can't expect everyone to get a 20 minute analysis report, the hacking was also covered by BBC as seen in the articles references. It was covered in ndtv too. Greatder (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Computer Barta article isn't reliable either. For example, it gives NDTV and Yahoo News as sources for the "20,000 websites" claim, but NDTV used Xinhua's report (via its Bangladesh correspondent)  of the group's Facebook claims, and Yahoo News simply re-published the IANS copy+paste of the same Xinhua story . Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: The sources in Bengali indicated by Greatder seem reliable. The sources talk about the Black Hat Hackers except for source 2, which is a brief description of the hackers and their comparison with the White Hat Hackers. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough Bengali sources for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete All but one source is a report of a massive 2012 attack against Indian websites that (a) wasn't reported outside Bangladesh and (b) isn't substantiated by anything other than the group's own Facebook claims; most of those sources are playing telephone, repeating the group's Facebook claims via Xinhua's article, either directly by citing Xinhua or indirectly via other tertiary sources which ultimately trace back to Xinhua. Greatder's Deutsche Welle article perhaps says it best: "'Various information about this is available on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs' [via Google Translate; emphasis mine]." What we have here is a single source supporting one attack on one website, and a several reports of an incident that is known only from a Facebook post and was never independently confirmed. It's a hoax--real hacks are easy to confirm, e.g. www.google.com/search?q=india+pakistan+hackers. So, I see one WP:RS for one insignificant prank--not a notable group. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is BBC, DW, ndtv, prothom alo, daily star not enough reliable sources?Greatder (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there are quite a lot of notable things that aren't reported on outside their country of origin. I highly doubt that Bangladeshi sources would cover, for example, William Hale (fourth governor of the Wyoming Territory). jp×g 22:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was leaning to vote delete per WP:1E but then found coverage on several activities by this group other than the "cyber war". Combining all the sources, the group seems to have enough notability to pass WP:GNG. -- Zayeem  (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2021 (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.