Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Anakin


 * 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 delete. as WP:G7  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cyber Anakin


Classic WP:BLP1E. Sources focus more in the event than on the person. The fact is that this article don't meet the criteria WP:NN. The person is "notable" because of one event and the "notability" pretty much died out once the media turned away. Other than this one event, there is nothing that indicates notoriety, with pretty much no reliable or independent sources that indicate that. Sources don't go any deeper as to point out any notoriety or if the repercussions of his actions were that serious. Article maily uses the website "reddit" as a source, wich is not the best, by far. Looks a bit like "WP:PROMO" than anything else. Coltsfan (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "notability" pretty much died out once the media turned away? Sounds like a WP:DEGRADE to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By coltsfan's logic Wikipedia should have delete a lot of ancient historical subjects who are no longer with us. How ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again with straw man. The person never had notability to begin with, so there is nothing to degrade. The biography has no notoriety, nothing notable beyond this one thing he did. Doesn't make sense. Coltsfan (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The person had WP:GNG so his argument is partly moot. Did he read my compromise plan outlined here? Or did he has a serious beef with the subject of he article? If not, why he is ignoring both my and other's calls to halt 1 on 1 arguments for a while?Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also the wording of coltsfan clearly indicated an air of WP:DEGRADE, frequent goal post moving is detected. Possible compromise by his POV.


 * Strong redirect Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bugmenot123123123/sandbox for my compromise plan to accommodate everyone's concerns. Redirect the old article to the new stub article once I make the move on the latter. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete (and maybe redirect) Delete just the article "Cyber Anakin" After a very long deliberation on my part, I have decide to ask for a speedy deletion of WP:G7 since the AfD discussion is unnecessarily distracting me and everyone else from more important matters and had began to take a toll on my body. I would also cite the WP:SNOWBALL clause that dictates that it would be unnecessary to waste people's time if the AFD discussion is gaining a rough consensus. I guess that I have to assume a pragmatic approach regarding the matter due to the coalescing consensus that the article would have to be cleared at the very least. It seems that by this point the chance of the consensus suddenly changing is now approaching 0%. Thank you.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The reason why I struck off the redirect is hinted at the bottom of the page Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, revamp and redirect or  Keep, but delete unneccessary details Redirect I have made up my mind after doing my legwork to understand the conventions. The information itself should be kept, but the Title and the content format will have to be rearranged. Since per WP:DEGRADE notablity can only remain steady or increase over time, changing the page from a biography type to an event type can spare us the efforts of having to recreate a page from scratch again in case the notablity increases. This should be a viable short term and long term solution.I have created the reduced stub event article and now it is inside my sandbox pending a final move. As for the old article, clear the contents and redirect it to the stub article once I make the final move for the stub article. Thank You Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reflecting the partial change of position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reflect a moderation in my position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Radical moderation in my position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This article fells in the first criteria for nobability: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". More than half the "sources" this article uses is reddit. I rest my case. Coltsfan (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In that sense it seems that a major cutback/abstraction in the article content would address his concerns, as long as the goal post stays there.
 * That being said, from coltsfan's latest wording, details that sounds more like gossips should be abstracted from the article to address his concerns. In that sense AFD is too overhanded, since an infobox saying that too much unreliable source would be suffice.

Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — Bugmenot123123123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't switch the topic from the article itself to my personal crediblity. This is a red herring.
 * On the other hand I express a regret for my part of the red herring. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I used the 3O function to ask for a 3rd opinion on this matterBugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Possible conflict of interest of coltsfan's part After I have checked out coltsfan's portugese page, which you may access by first going to his user page and then click on Portugese in the language section, I have discovered that he is a Star Trek fan which might entail a major conflict of interest partly due to the Star Trek-Star Wars rivalry, since the subject himself is apparently a Star Wars fan and named himself after a Star Wars character. In this case, I strogly advise a multilateral arbitration to address the said conflict of interest on coltsfan's part while solving the matter. Who know if coltsfan was just jealous that no hacker who references himself to a Star Trek character has reach notablity as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Full link of coltsfan's portugese page: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Coltsfan
 * In my opinion I think that this conflict of interest may be the reason why coltsfan's efforts are more focused to degrading the subject's notablity and eventually putting it into a memory hole rather than improving the article. I am starting to see the reason behind his goal post moving behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: AfD's purpose is to allow for other users to provide input in support or opposition to the deletion of the article in question. Please stop squabbling and filling up this page with unnecessary comments. Filing a Third Opinion at this stage is unnecessarily gamey, so please stop that as well. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 16:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Due to the conflict of interest thing (outlined here) and the emotional thing (outlined in talk page of "Cyber Anakin"), can I use the Request for Comment thing or brough the whole issue to a "tea house" to stop the AFD from turning into a squabbling board and shouting match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this serious? Like, for real, is this an argument? "Star Trek-Star Wars rivalry"? Really? i'm in shock. This is a new low. Coltsfan (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Who can guarantee that we both won't get isolated if we turn this into a shouting match? And yep, you seems to have an obvious beef regarding this matter. User:MarshalN20 is terribly right about both me and you. I am just pointing a possible factor regarding your goal post changing behavior. Obviously the truth hurts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You are making baseless and ridiculous personal attacks to me in order to discredit my argumentation. I work in articles all around wikipedia, in many different languages. What does that have to do with anything? This is a very shameful way to conduct the discussion because I never, at any point of this discussion, called into question your credibility as an editor. Now you can not say the same thing. This is ridiculous. Coltsfan (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I could have become hotheaded and jealousy if my place is swapped with Coltsfan's. Also I may have to opt for a kind of page protection to deter this kind of POV behavior if the article is retained for some reason. I don't think that 3rd parties will see any inconsistencies between Ockham's razor and the conflict of interest theory, whether both me and the hotheaded editor likes it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 17:33, December 31, 2016 (UTC)
 * If coltsfan didn't offer reasons that contradict each other and use the talk page to explain everything at the first place when he first put up the infobox onto the article, things might have turn differently, and his motives may not be called into question, and I could have began work to subsume the article into an event article. Instead, he chose to put up vague explanations on places like "edit summary" when he first raised up the issue. Thank you Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E . There's obvious Gnews coverage but it all seems to stem from a single claim that "A hacker, who calls himself Cyber Anakin after the Star Wars character, is taking aim at Russian websites to avenge the MH17 crash," or variants thereof. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Motherboard news report security researcher Troy Hunt confirmed Cyber Anakin's claims by saying that the data dump itselves is legiminate. I suggest subsuming the article into an "event" article, as outlined before.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP. There is only one real article about this subject (motherboard), which only contains a fraction of the information listed in this article, and then that article appears to have been picked up by news.com.au. There also appears to be a conflict of interest at play here, which is making it more difficult to analyze and discuss. Bradv  17:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the conventions and looks like subsuming the article into an "event" article like the Mevlut Mert Altintas case might be something worth think of.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think changing the article's focus from a BLP to an event is going to be enough -- for the simple reason that other than a reported claim, there doesn't seem to be a notable event, yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With Troy Hunt's verification of his claim regarding the data dump, I think that the matter has demonstrated a degree of notablityBugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize you are new to Wikipedia, so I'll explain: Notability means something very specific on Wikipedia - it is not the same thing as important or true. Please read WP:GNG. One person confirming that something was hacked, and the information being covered in one magazine using information from Twitter, does not meet any of the notability criteria. Bradv  18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The person may not be significat enough in overall, but the KM.RU and Nival data breaches might. As Shawn said, it's up to the question whether the said breaches warrant a data breach article. Now I am inclined to turn the bio page into an event page. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The event may be notable if you can find enough coverage. What else is there besides motherboard? I would recommend creating a Draft article at WP:AFC and submit it when it's ready. Then this page (Cyber Anakin) can be a useful redirect. Bradv  18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is security analysis from 3rd party cybersecurity or telecommunications companies enough? Because I found this: https://www.cyberinsurance.com/breaches/kmru/ Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, the redirect option is already in my compromise plan. Maybe the title should be "2016 KM.RU and Nival data breaches".Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Did you just reply to yourself?) I would say that will help, especially if we can combine it with some news articles on the subject. An article about the event is definitely more likely to stick around then an article about an anonymous hacker. Bradv  18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope I am just doing a fragmented reply. Anyways in the rebooted article most of the gossips like Rachel Marsden and the Olympic Truce would have to be left out. Also the hacks before the KM.RU and Nival and his Sputnik/Gagarin reddit frustration would have to be left out.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Shawn in Montreal and Bradv, BLP1E. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Shawn has a very slight change in position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

https://www.cyberinsurance.com/breaches/kmru/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 03:30, January 1, 2017 (UTC) Please don't misinterpret me. Being a Star Trek fan is not a conflict of interest. I suspect you have a conflict of interest, as you seem to know an awful lot about this Cyber Anakin guy, and aren't in the habit of creating Wikipedia articles about hackers. Regarding the article, please go ahead and create the article on the event as suggested. Regardless of how this AFD turns out, this content belongs on an article about the data breach, not here. Brad v  03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to the article creator's statement, I've struck through my delete and will leave it to others as to whether it's significant enough to warrant a data breach article, as part of Category:Data breaches. I hope this is also a lesson to Bugmenot123123123 that creating needless WP:Drama is not going to help you here -- but sticking to the facts will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note duly taken, and the drama advice can be applied to coltsfan too. At least this AFD wont become a shouting match after all (sighs) Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP1E still applies to this article, however. If Bugmenot wants to create a data breach article, more power to him/her, but this AfD is about this article. I have some doubts about the reliability of the cyberinsurance.com site, but that question and questions about how to craft such an article or whether some new article will or will not be notable is not within the scope of this AfD. I'd recommend that Bugmenot follow Bradv's advice at 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC), above. My !vote is unchanged. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the discussion of the hypothetical new article is perfectly wihin topic though, this discussion is more like a what to do next matter.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the redirect option seems to be gaining consensus (or is it me?) it's relevant to discuss about the hypothetical article here though. I would love to hear some inputs from experts of the Ukrainian crisis on this matter.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you could find, say, significant Russian-language coverage of the data breaches that might help to build a case for notability for an article on the breaches -- or on the hacker. References do not have to be in English Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , you would have to search pretty deep for the sources. In this article here, there is 8 sources, for instance (4 are reddit, one a non verified twitter account, one is a primary source and the two that are ok only mentions the guy) that doesn't say much. So in an article where 90% of the content is in fact Unverifiable by reliable sources, it's tough to consider other options. Coltsfan (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing mention by a security report: https://www.elevenpaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Breaches-2016_T1_EN_v1.0.pdf Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A coverage by a third party security company https://www.cyberinsurance.com/breaches/nival/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Passing mention by WIRED www.wired.com/2016/03/security-news-week-whatsapp-faces-crypto-war Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As bradv said, if the cyberinsurance coverage are combined with news articles, that might help the situation.
 * Also as I have hinted earlier that conflict of interest is very apparent in the discussion (yep I am saying about you coltsfan), now bradv seems to have noticed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 03:30, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * User:bradv Regarding the number of sources issue put up by the hotheaded contributor, I have to say that it is under my consideration too. I am envisioning a complete omission of Cyber Anakin's previous hacks before KM.RU and Nival, Rachel Marsden thing and the Olympic Truce event in the hypothetical article. Instead, the article is going to use news articles and third party analysis reports from cyberinsurance.com, and only a passing mention regarding his birth year and his pseudonym. Do I have your attention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I only find that the subject itself is worth to enter into my line of sight and follow up though. If my mind don't play games on me, I recall that before this point I have been using IP to fix typos found in other Wikipedia article. The "Cyber Anakin" article is the first article created by me on Wikipedia, just as a fact.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Since a redirect from the old page is within my watch, yep, the issues are related. As for my scope of editing with my account, it's called "niche interest". You may say that it is an excessive protective measure to stay out from edit wars, by focusing on one single subject topic.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Going out the topic for a while, Reuters had an article covering the ST/SW rivalry

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0TL1BV20151203 This is why for me, the point of view/conflict of interest concern is a legiminate oneBugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You wanted a Third Opinion? You've got one: Delete. There's nothing there, even if you puff the one event this alleged bio is hanging on. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you got the cyberinsurance coverage here? Also if a full delete gets a green light, that would set a very bad precedent, if coltsfan's POV influence and the connection of Cyber Anakin's actions to the Ukrainian war were to taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake, no one cares about this imbecilic "Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry," except you. And certainly not Coltsfan. Drop it. And I still don't see the refs that would amount to notability so I'm going to restore my delete. I'm quite convinced maintaining this article would only serve as a magnetic for more of this behaviour. WP:COMPETENCE is required here as well as notability. Enough is enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Yup, enough is enough, so the hypothetical stub article that would address everyone's concern is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bugmenot123123123/sandbox Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Afternote Regarding the Star Trek/Star Wars issue, no matter how lame it was perceived, I was trying to simply connecting the dots to find a best theory to explain all of coltsfan's hotheaded and goal post moving behavior in this issue. I am starting to doubt his good faith and began to suspect that some kind of bias is seriously affecting Coltsfan's judgement after the point where I saw the "Star Trek fan" thing on his Portugese user page. Considering the fact that the subject named himself after a SW character, it would be obvious for anyone else passing here to wonder if the theory turns out to be true, regardless of its perceived possibility. By conclusion, since I am tired of this kind of nasty politics and the rigid/nasty atmosphere going around here, and since the whole fiasco begins to waste my time and everyone else's time, I have filed a speedy deletion request. cc:User:Shawn in Montreal Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Look how idiotic your claim is: I'm white so if this hacker is black would you then theorise that i'm doing this out of racism due to the history of racism in this country? I'm using here the Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry issue that you brought up, connecting dots that don't exist. You are saying that i'm hotheaded and bias, even though i never exalted myself in this discussion, never called you names or theorised stupied things in order to discredit whatever argument you were using. I know,, other than this "rivalry theory" you don't have anything to use, since the wiki rules are clearely on my side, as many editors point it out. Instead of using this chance to learn something, you continue to attack my integrity as an editor and saying things that are completely baseless and don't help the discussion. I recomend you to read WP:EQ, if you have the time. So, for the love of anything you believe, drop this "Star Trek/Star Wars" thing. It's childish. It's making you look desperate and it costed you support. I know you are not an idiot, so don't act like one. Coltsfan (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Same to you regarding WP:EQ, I have to admit that I had tried to restrain myself after the 3O had warn that the discussion between us might turn very sour, so I guess you may have failed to take note of that and is not a saint in this matter too. The Star Wars/Star Trek rivalry is more about an ideological/opinionated one, akin to that of Capitalism/Communism and the support of either Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election, although a bit less severe. Also the compromise plan appears to be working since the page regarding the event itself has passed review from a new page patroller which appeared to be well versed of the Wikipedia conventions (check my contributions to navigate yourself to that page). A redirect page has been set up on the Cyber Anakin (hacktivist) page. For this page, I myself can't guarantee that another artist/youtuber or the like will not use the name "Cyber Anakin" causing a degree of confusion, so now I have to be pragmatic and to agree to the consensus that the article "Cyber Anakin" should be cleared and become a placeholder for a potential disambiguation page if the disambiguation scenario happens. I had struck off the redirect thing in my vote. Did I made myself clear regarding both the SW/ST issue and my intention to clear the contents of just the "Cyber Anakin" page?Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The speedy delete request has been denied, though the consensus that the article itself should be deleted is now here. So I will ask the admin who denied the speedy delete request to assess the consensus and close the discussion. After that point, I will refile the speedy deletion request. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that Everipedia, a Wikipedia competitor, has transwikied the full "Cyber Anakin" article using a bot. This could explain my vast moderation of my position over time.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody, absolutely nobody cares two s*its about "Star Wars/Star Trek rivalry". I didn't even knew that this existed. What do you think we have here? A bunch of children and fanboys? We're all grown ups here and we act like it. As for you, read my advice: grow up! Second, the consensus here was unanimous towards the deletion of whatever this article was suppose to be. Again, instead of learning from this experience you go for the offending other users with your "theories" that are not here nor there. So, since this page is going to be 100% deleted, i'm out., you can stay with your conspiracy theories about COI. Go full Alex Jones, why do i care. Just take full notice of the WP:NN and don't repeat the same mistake. As for the "restrain", you did a very lousy work so, for the personal level, i expect you improve your manners. Bye! Coltsfan (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, next time please don't be vague on your reasons whether you do any kind of edits that might touch the disruptive line. Also I don't think that age alone can weigh how "grown up" people might be, since as I said earlier, I am living in an honor/face based society where the both are taken seriously and failures are usually frowned upon. I saw a documentary about hypothetical disaster scenario and survivalism (I think it's from National Geographic) where a scientist said that human nature are inherently unstable so I think grown ups doesn't differ much from children if compared with inherent human nature. That's why the political system of the USA is focused on checking and balancing against the instability part of human nature. America is already great in this respect, although I am afraid that this kind of system may not survive a Trump administration. I do advise you to maintain some kind of cultural sensitivity. Thank you.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bugmenot123123123, this is exacly the problem: you are talking about Trump, the world and America nowadays, riveralys... You're tripping. All this discussion is about one simple article not meeting the standards for notability. Nothing more. Stop the nonsensical stuff! Coltsfan (talk) 13:27, 2 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.