Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (3 nomination)


 * 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 to delete. No irremediable core policy violations (which would mandate deletion regardless) are plainly evident, so default to keep.  Sandstein   16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet brigades
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Note: I failed to find the first nomination. Different article title? Mukadderat (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research. While there is seemingly plenty of referenes, they are just a collection of various things to promote a neologism. There is virtually no google hits that define the term in the meaning of the aricle. The definition is self-made and often contradicts the references provided. While there is no doubt some governments attempt to put internet under control, the term in question is not established yet. In the previous nomination I voted to "keep" this page, but now I see it just gradually becomes an indiscriminatecollection of various facts, mixing real government internet control and conspiracy theories in a form of original essay which attempts to promote the virtuslly non-existing term. At best it may be split into a series of articles kind of Government intervention of the internet in China, Government intervention of the internet in Russia, Government intervention of the internet in the United States, etc. Mukadderat (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per argumentation in previous 2 AfDs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since previous AfD, this article has been improved by providing references to BBC News, Reuters, and other publications in reliable sources (please see list of references). There is no original research here; everything was taken from sources. If something was not, please tell what it was, and let's fix it.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection: With all due respect, please find me sources which (1) use the term and (2) define it as it is defined in the wikipedia article. This is a classical example of original research: to make a definition and then to collect newspaper articles whivch fit it. Mukadderat (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those particular sources are not relevant to the subject, unless you believe that petty vandalism and Oprah Winfrey are somehow tied together in a propaganda campaign. WillOakland (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. In the current version, sources 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11 cite specifically the term "Internet brigades". The corresponding article in Russian WP is also called "Internet brigades". Note that you and others just deleted nine reliable sources on this subject including BBC News and Reuters. The deleted sources are relevant even though they do not tell a combination of words "Internet brigades", because this article is about phenomenon, not about a combination of words. I restored these sources to allow others decide if they are relevant or not. Let's be polite and keep the article as it was until the end of AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited are russian sources which present russian conspiracy theory, an example of putinphobia very fashionable today. `'Míkka>t 15:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article still is a mess, but it is not an entirely unsourced mess. I have removed the sources that do not deal with state propaganda. WillOakland (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe rename to "Government propaganda on the internet," with sources that discuss this subject per se (rather than the typical laundry list of what some editor thinks is propaganda). WillOakland (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand the intent of the artcle, its subject is not propaganda: it is active intervenstuion and subversion of internet forums by secret services. Mukadderat (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced and per past consensus. Ostap 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to list sources which use and define this term as in wikipedia article. Mukadderat (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable topic, valid title per WP:COMMONNAME. Martintg (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "COMMONTITLE? You must be kidding. there is no such term in English language. `'Míkka>t 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - invented term. Coatrack OR, i.e., synthesis of a new term unduly internationalized: At very best the term may be applied to translate the russian conspiracy theory given in Russian language references. `'Míkka>t 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment. So, you have deleted nine valid sources again. Well, perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see any valid objections, a discussion and consensus building at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what is your consensus, it is a cconsensus of original research. There is no such english term. How difficult it is to understand? The term is legal in wikipedia only as applied to about Russian conspiracy theory. `'Míkka>t 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the expression came from Russian. However, this "conspiracy" theory is Russian, Polish, Chinese, and American, as one can see from the text and references, unless you delete them again.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have deleted all recent edits again, in violation of WP:3RR rule. So, that is your final and decisive argument?Biophys (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYN, seriously this article has only one purpose to make a WP:POINT --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have read the translation of the original article by Polyanskaya, "Commissars of the Internet" and have to say that it looks like a conspiracy theory. It is written with serious claims not backed by serious references, only mentions some "protected polls" etc. Her conclusions are naive at best in many times (e.g., why liberal tone of runet (russian internet) changed: an easier explanation is that in older times internet was available to intellectuals only who are mostly liberals even in America, and now "average russian" speaks). I have also browsed google for the term and have to conclude that the article is an unreasonable self-made generalization of a new theory KGB scare. The chinese example is competly different flavor. China has long and consistent and documented history of manipulation with internet. I would suggest the author to salvage the reasonably referenced russian part of the text into tyhe exact translation of the russian term, web brigades, and start with the explanation that this is alleged phenomenon, not proven yet. Wikipedia had already done its piece of "manipulation with internet" by proviking titles like Does the pentagon have 'internet brigades' like the russians, so this must be stopped now. Laudak (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One source (Yusupovsky) claims this to be a "conspiracy" theory. At least ten other well informed sources claim this to be real. But even if you are right, this is a content matter, not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. We have a lot of articles about different conspiracy theories. That is not a valid reason for deletion. Renaming this as "web brigades" is also not a reason for deletion. Please explain what is exactly the difference between Russian and Chinese teams per cited sources? I do not see any differences. P.S. You apparently never visited discussions at certain Russian language sites, such as grani.ru, so you did not see such teams in action.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree here. It is your job to provide sources which say that Russian web-brigades and Chinese Internet secret police are one and the same. Saying so without references is exactly WP:SYNTH of various material into a new notion, i.e., original research. Laudak (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, you wrote "Renaming this as "web brigades" is also not a reason for deletion." I am not talking about renaming. I am talking about writing a separate article based on good sources about Russian web brigades. And about deleting the non-existent term which unduly attempts to generalize. Laudak (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. If you suggest to exclude materials about Chinese teams from this article, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. We can discuss this matter at the article talk page if you wish.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to be restoring much more stuff others are trying to delete... Anyway, you are still missing the major objection: you introduced a neologism. A completely new article must be written which do not mix and match notions and it must stick to Russian context -- where the term "web-brigades is used. And you don't really need my help: all what you have to do is to cut and paste the corresponding text into a new article with a non-objectionable title. I admit I was tempted to do this myself, but I don't want to steal the authorship/priority from you. :-) Laudak (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you are telling that "Internet brigades" should be deleted, but "Web-brigades" is fine. Then one should simply move this article rather than copy and paste. This is not an AfD is about. If this article will be deleted, and someone recreates it under a different name, it should be "speedy deleted".Biophys (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Oh god, not another one of Biophys' pet WP:OR/WP:SYNTH WP:POINT articles.--Miyokan (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the reason is me. Thanks. Please note that I do not own this article. I only contributed here.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a personal attack is not a valid argument in an Afd discussion. Ostap 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, this is not a valid argument. However such deletions of sources from the article, in combination with claims of OR can indeed affect results of an AfD. Note that deletion was done in violation of 3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Kuban Cossack, nothing but a collection of WP:Synth to make a WP:Point, only one or two references are actually used in context and even they are barely credible, written by known conspiracy theorists. Regarding so called "personal attacks" on Biophys, I don't think that's a personal attack at all. This is just dejavu and the regular editors on these subjects are becoming understandingly annoyed. It's completely valid to note certain negative and disruptive tendencies of particular users and their editing habits when their disruptiveness is recurring endlessly. I can't count how many non-factual, blatantly biased, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR filled conspiracy theory articles and sections that this user has created (many of which have already been deleted or revamped). It's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia. We should not let it turn into a propaganda vehicle to brainwash and misinform unsuspecting readers. This is potentially the most dangerous aspect of wikipedia. Krawndawg (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, how many "conspiracy theory articles" have I created? I can count only a couple among at least 300 other articles created by me. Even if I did, such articles are allowed by WP policies.Biophys (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A very interesting subject on a current phenomenon, all that it needs is expansion. Tymek (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And where did you read about "internet brigades" besides wikipedia to conclude that such a phenomenon exists? Mukadderat (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As the sources provided say, this phenomenon does exist, and it does not take a vivid imagination to admit it. As for the name - it might as well be changed, but I am leaving it for users involved in creation of the article. Tymek (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-notable neologism - but an important, real subject and not a bad article so keep. A more dignified name would not be unwelcome.  And if there's another article on the exact same thing they should be combined.  But yes, the phenomenon is notable and the article has encyclopedic content.Wikidemo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Severel "delete" voters agreed that the topic makes sense as a specific russian web-brigades conspiracy theory, but the current article title is a neologism and everything beyond Russian context is original coatracking into this theory. Other suggestions about salvaging its content are also suggested. But as it is the article violates WP:SYNTH. Mukadderat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the only problem seems to be with title, whereas the subject is notable and sufficiently sourced. Note that we also have two articles in Russian and Chinese wikipedias about these "Internet brigades". I think Chinese users know this better. There are        some content disagreements. But an AfD nomination is not the way to resolve content disputes.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. First, may I please ask "delete" voters to stop attacking Biophys? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." And also may I ask that attempts to silence criticism of the Moscow regime &mdash; a government that perpetrates brutal killings, torture, abuse and violence, that carries out unlawful killings, politically motivated abductions, and disappearances in Chechnya, Ingushetiya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus, that has dramatically weakened freedom of expression and media independence by shutting down television networks, harassed, intimidated and even killed journalists (and for that matter set up Internet brigades), is rampantly corrupt, and has turned the Duma into a rubber-stamp while centralizing vast powers in the President (or now his eminence grise) &mdash; not be made through blithe, dismissive references to "Putinphobia"? Yes, a man who does all that absolutely is to be feared! OK, now to the policy reasons for keeping this article. First, no matter how much some may deny this, the phenomenon has been documented in reliable sources, the martyred Politkovskaya not least among them. Second, with expansion of the article to cover Red China and Western nations, we see this is not a Russia-only phenomenon, but one that has been found in other places too, again in reliable sources. Third, this may be the best name we have - though if someone comes up with a better one, by all means let's consider it - but a bad name is not a rationale for deletion. Biruitorul Talk 03:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and are also aware that in Russia winter is all year round and armed bears walk the streets? --Kuban Cossack 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of turning this into a forum: the killings, torture, abuse, violence, abductions, disappearances, harassment and intimidation of media, and centralizing of Presidential power are not a laughing matter - right? Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Told by a real expert such as you they are, much like the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was so surely meant to have... Tell me Biruitorul when was the last time you visited Russia? --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. This discussion has nothing to do with Saddam, though for the record, intelligence agencies from various countries (UK, US, Denmark, Italy) all said he had WMD (which may have been transported to Syria by the Russians). 2. Visiting a place has little bearing on whether one can be considered an expert in that field. Joseph Needham never visited Ming China; Stanislas Julien never visited China, period. Ronald Syme never visited Augustan Rome. Champollion never visited Ancient Egypt. Clyde Tombaugh never set foot on Pluto. Yet all were undisputed experts in those areas. I've never claimed to be a Russia expert, but I'm astute enough to listen to what the experts tell me are the dark happenings going on there. 3. TVS? Mass graves? Skyrocketing corruption? Politkovskaya? Litvinenko? Centralization of power? Torture? ? These are forceful ghosts that will come back to haunt Russia; they can't just be waved away. Her men are dying. Fascism and Islam are spreading. It pains me to see it; it's a country I love very dearly, that could be doing so much better. But laughing off its manifold problems is not really a solution to them. Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you've never been to Russia and your primary sources are all western. Well congratulations, you're a victim of propaganda and brainwashing. But even western press tells us that Politkovskaya's murderer has been found out. Even her own magazine editor says those pointing the finger at the Kremlin are doing so unjustly. Do yourself and the rest of wikipedia a favor and stick to subjects that you have actual experience and knowledge in, we don't need self-proclaimed "experts" like yourself spreading hearsay and propaganda. Taking your word seriously would be like taking a communists lessons on free trade seriously. Oh, and I really do resent your attack on the Islamic faith. You pair Islam with Fascism? That's blatant, ignorant hate speech, and you probably don't even realize it because you watch so much Fox news that it's become normal to think of Islam that way. The cold hard truth is that you are completely clueless and have no business involving yourself in such subject matters.Krawndawg (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Even if we concede Politkovskaya, Litvinenko and many others remain, like Fatima Tlisova (chased out of the country after being beaten). 2. Counterpunch itself is a propaganda site. And anyway, it's not hard to be popular when you've destroyed the opposition. As I asked earlier, "the killings, torture, abuse, violence, abductions, disappearances, harassment and intimidation of media, and centralizing of Presidential power are not a laughing matter - right?" You may call me brainwashed, but that doesn't wave away those realities. 3. As I pointed out, going to a place does not make one an expert in it - or was Stanislas Julien not an expert in China? And as I also pointed out, "I've never claimed to be a Russia expert". 4. Islam, like any other religion, is just another ideology, although one that a billion or so people hold rather dearly. I will however reserve the right to criticise this ideology as I do, say, fascism or Marxism, without paying much attention to spurious charges of "hate speech". Why would it be "hate speech" to criticise a religious ideology but not a political one? And anyway, an ideology that is still going around killing people should be hated. Not the adherents of that ideology, but the ideology itself. Or shall we exclude atheists from Wikipedia? (Also, we do have an article called Islamofascism - the connections are there.) And speaking as an Orthodox Christian, it pains me to see Russia, once Orthodoxy's strongest champion, slowly fall to a great, intractable rival. So I do lament the spread of both fascism and Islam there. Biruitorul Talk 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that what is essentially a conspiracy theory is presented in the article as solid fact. None of the cited sources provides any tangible proof that the phenomenon of "internet brigades" exists, but they all rather speculate on their existence, make assumptions and allegations, and then draw conclusions.   For me, this is a red flag showing that the topic covers a theory, not a fact.  While the sheer number of cited sources asserts the notability of this theory, none of these sources looks at the phenomenon objectively or studies it academically.  Until such sources appear, the subject does not have encyclopedic value, and hence my opinion is that, in its present form, the article should be deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, "verifiability, not truth". The subject of this article satisfies the WP:Notability because it has been described in multiple reliable sources. What else "encyclopedic value" do you mean?Biophys (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the article talks about "internet brigades" as if they were a fact of life, but no tangible evidence to that effect is presented either in the article or in the sources cited. Hence, the logical conclusion is that the article does not describe a fact, but a theory (and a conspiracy theory at that).  As there are no sources dealing with this theory from the academic standpoint (no objective analysis, no proof, only assumptions, allegations, and speculation), the theory has no encyclopedic value, which is why the article should be deleted.  Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The theory has immense encyclopedic value as it describes efforts of the most influential authoritarian government in the world to dominate Internet(and therefor the world's access to free information)-so therefore I have to disagree with that argument. As to articles about Russian attempts to censor internet and manipulate information there-they are plenty, including academic ones. Although Wikipedia isn't limited to academic sources per definition.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Plenty of academic sources"? If that is indeed so, please note that none of those sources is cited in this article's reference section.  All I see is a vast collection of newspaper clippings, some more relevant than other, and every single one providing nothing more than speculation, not proof or analysis.  As currently presented, the subject has as much encyclopedic value as your average alien abduction report.  Please note that our notability criteria explicitly ask for the subject to  have objective evidence, and that a "burst of news" does not constitute evidence of sufficient notability.  As for Wikipedia not being limited to academic sources, that only works well when non-academic sources supplement academic ones&mdash;otherwise I'd be able to post and keep an article about my own backyard (the existence of which is verifiable through numerous county assessor's records and which has some newspaper coverage from the times when my residential community was being built).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the arguments of Laudak. 1  !=  2  14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Split in two and delete this one per Laudak et al. I've looked at the references and it looks like none of them group these two phenomena. The information about alleged web-brigades in Russia (some of which is perfectly sourced and notable) should be moved to another article. It should also be noted that the current article is extremely unbalanced with only a paragraph about China where internet control and censorship is much more strict (and proven) than in Russia. Alæxis¿question? 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * China is far more visible to journalists and media then Russia Alaexis-consider the amount of media coverage and tourist reports during Russian military invasion of Chechnya compared to police crackdown during Tibet riots.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? - No reporters were allowed into Tibet or Chechnya. Anyone reporting from either of those locations were doing so in secret. The difference is that China controls all of its press, whereas you can go to any newspaper stand in Moscow and find papers calling Putin a murderer and a tyrant. Krawndawg (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, Alaexis suggests to keep Russian/Polish portion and split Chinese portion, even though Chinese users made an "Internet brigades" article in Chinese wikipedia. Then why delete? What names would he suggest for the splitted articles?Biophys (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep-the article describes a real life actions of Russian authoritarian government to influence Internet opinion and content as well control over its citizens, as well as manipulate in other countries. This has been studied and exposed. The article uses respectable sources and covers a subject of political events in the world as well as development of governmental attempts to control Internet. There is nothing for its deletion.--Molobo (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * False. The article describes allegations. And it was already suggested by several people that the Russian part must be saved under an appropriate title and clearly stick to Russian context and Russian term, web brigades. `'Míkka>t 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you simply suggest renaming. But what is the difference between "Web brigades" and "Internet brigades"? I thought "internet" and "web" are the same.Biophys (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you demonstrating great inflexibility by reverting the removal of original research, I still vote for deletion. `'Míkka>t 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you tell: "this is personal". Please remember: this is NOT my article. This is good faith work by many good wikipedians.Biophys (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research, and clear violation of WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is notable and well sourced. Of course it can stay. I notice many agenda pushing Russian nationalists are trying to get it deleted now. It could however be expanded. There's only a small section about China even though they're probably the king at internet censoring. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not-so-subtle insinuations nonwithstanding, could you clarify how this article is "well-sourced"? Our notability guidelines specifically state that news is not an acceptable source to establish notability, and news reports is all the reference section of this article presently contains.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Journalism always falls under "news"? If so, then what's left? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Books, encyclopedias, journals. ACADEMIC refrences not that of articles in yellow press.--Kuban Cossack 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as to label most of this article's references as "yellow press", but otherwise Kuban voiced my point precisely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a neologism. Also there is just a handful of sources, most of which are news publications. In my view this thin coverage suggests that the subject is not notable. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "A handful of sources, most of which are in news publications" is good reason for a keep. This is a neologism, sure, but a notable one. Used for a notable topic, with extensive documentation. the actual existence of them & their nature is not even necessary to be demonstrated, as long as they are being talked about. One of the comments above urged us to delete it on the basis of people putting in OR material. But that's an editing  question. Agreed,m this is the sort of article where difficult editing questions arise, but we can and indeed are obligated to deal with that.  DGG (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much suggests that the internet has become an important battleground for competing national and private entities.  The topic is therefore a notable one.  As with any article on a notable topic, this one too will need to be judiciously edited and refined, including perhaps its title.  But there is certainly no justification to delete this article.  And... proponents of deletion:  please do try to stay on-topic and forego ad hominem attacks on other participants in this discussion.  Nihil novi (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is a conspiracy theory presented as a fact, but the article mainly contains original research coupled with referenced opinion pieces in a novel synthesis, thing against Wikipedia policy. Something can be salvaged, but certainly not the article in its current form.Xasha (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2008 (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.