Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disinformation


 * 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) Atmoz (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disinformation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An article full of WP:SYNTH and WP:Coatrack Tentontunic (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I lean towards delete per nom and because this is one of the worst articles I have yet seen here--badly sourced, fuzzy definitions and wording, skimpy and inadequate discussion which does not match the (bad) definition given, and the inclusion of Fox News is plain wrong. However, a potentially notable topic, and could likely be saved if someone wants to make the effort.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Poor article, but dezinformatsiia is a valid encyclopedia-worthy topic. A very good history of this concrete thing could be written — it's a noun and it should have a page here. The article as it stands has very big problems... The entire "examples of" needs to get whacked because it's a magnet for POV trolling. Dezinformatsiia is a part of spycraft (used by both sides during the Cold War and still being used by big states today) and has nothing to do with the organized propaganda of Fox News, etc. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll see if I can put together a few hours to work on this. It's not really an area of expertise, but I 100% guarantee that this is a notable and encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment - Lest there be any question about the notability of the concept, here's A LINK to a 1984 article in the Ultra-Official establishment foreign policy magazine Foreign Affairs entitled "Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy; New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation." The key to finding TONS of internet hits here is to Google-search the Russian word dezinformatsiia (dezinformatsia, dezinformatsiya). It's a measure of this article's badness that it doesn't mention the origin of the term in the lead. Again, it is a THING in the world of spycraft... Carrite (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another comment - A co-author of the above article also published a book-length treatment of the subject; Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy (1984). ISBN: 0080315739 / 0-08-031573-9 A rewrite of the article will need to use this as an important source. It'll take me a day or two to track down a copy, it looks like I've sold my old copy off...  Carrite (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Last comment today, I promise - I have blanked the POV-challenged section on News Corp, which only obfuscates the issue here. No, I am not a conservative sticking up for "my team" — quite the opposite. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article is a notable one, with many books and scholarly articles devoted to it. A Google Book Search shows many books which can be used to improve the article: . Google scholar shows many publications with coverage of the subject: . More than a dictionary definition is possible and necessary. If the article needs editing, then it should be edited, not deleted. Edison (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is obviously a notable subject that deserves an article. It is sourced. Yes, it should be improved. Not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I was disappointed in the nature of the sourcing of the examples, the only reason I was there at all was because I wanted a good article on the subject. I'd especially like to see Carrite's version. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Carrite per - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Some problems with the content - I expect any article with this title would be a magnet for problematic editing - but the concept itself is highly notable and there's no shortage of sources. bobrayner (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is obviously not a dictionary entry. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per voters above. Diego Grez (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but source impeccably. Important subject, but one that's susceptible to opinion-pushing from both sides of any given dispute. DS (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2011 (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.