Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2009 cyber attacks


 * 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 keep. WP:SK Criteria #5 Protonk (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 cyber attacks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

news-hype, non-notable, unencyclopeadic Casimirpo (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing here so far that I have not read in accredited newspapers such as the NYT and FT. It's been speculated in mainstream media that NK is behind the attacks, and there is definitely an ongoing attack. This would hardly be the first time Wikipedia had an article about an event that were currently unfolding. As long as the heading states that, there is nothing wrong with it. It is most definitely worth chronicalling cyber attacks, such as the recent attack against Latvia that appeared to originate inside Russia. And how is it any better to write about an event a month later than to do so as it happens? Particularly since the article can obviously be edited at a later date to remove factually erroneous info. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonCain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems well-sourced and notable to me. -- Yekrats (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems quite encyclopedic to me, and whether the attack originated in North Korea or not it was certainly intended to look like it was from North Korea, and is thus notable as part of the ongoing escalation of unfriendliness between North Korea and the rest of the world. Also: what Yekrats said.  Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I think creation of this page was premature and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Although it may turn out that these attacks are notable in the long-run, it's too early to know this and I see no evidence of notability yet.  What is lost by waiting a few months before writing an article?  What if there are more attacks in August?  In September?  Then the title and organization of this topic will be inaccurate.  I also find no evidence that these attacks are notable as a topic in and of themselves.  There has been pretty much steady coverage of a variety of cyber attacks over the past several years and I have seen nothing that makes this particular one stand out.  See this search: .  Also, searching in google for the phrase "July 2009 cyber attacks" on google yields only hits that are mirroring or referencing this article.  Also see this search: .  The coverage is all within a 3 day time-window.  Someone jumped the gun here and I say to delete both because I see no evidence of notability as a topic in and of itself, and also in order to discourage this sort of activity in the future.   Cazort (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments: This article has been created as part of Wikipedia's In The News project, and it is quite common for them to write about recent events. That's the point of the "In the news" section. The notability would be quite clear if you actually bothered to read the sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been reading about this a lot in the news. I'm not questioning the notability of the content, I'm questioning the notability of this as a topic in and of itself.  I very strongly feel that this is not the best way to organize this sort of material.  I also can point out this search:  which shows that concerns over hacking from China and North Korea have been concerns for a long period of time...it's not just this one event.  I think that the material would be more meaningful if it existed in a broader context.  If this attack proves notable in the long run, then and only then should it have its own page.  Cazort (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Despite it's encyclopedic value, this event seems more like media fearcruft than an actual threat. Such threat would be worth inclusion, if it existed. RUL3R *flaming|*vandalism 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable, if not as significant as the media would have us think. What would be lost by waiting a few months? The time and effort of the people who wrote the article, obviously. Bryce (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be a significant event. Obviously it wasn't completely made up. Future revisions to the article (or even a name change/move) based on new information are always welcome. There is no reason to remove the article now. Bonus Onus (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is worth noting that the article is linked from the Main Page. RUL3R *flaming|*vandalism 17:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The possibility of future attacks and the extent of the current ones is quite notable, IMHO. Not an actual threat? No, nobody's going to die (probably) but it's impacting the public flow of information... Mononomic (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable; has numerous articles and references from mainstream media, as well as coverage from major antimalware vendors. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I recommend the nominator reads the sources in the article, and does a preliminary search of http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?pz=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=dlxzPfrJR-gkQuMhGUTSMJ4HVxIiM Google, before nominating articles which are linked to the main page and claiming they are non-notable. As for the non-encyclopaedic claim, this is an article in progress due to it's recent nature. Significant changes could well happen, and we should give it due time to develop. Despite the WP:NOTNEWS accusation, I feel this is worthy of inclusion due to the somewhat hostile nature of the Korean peninsula in current times, particularly with North Korea's feelings towards the U.S. and South Korea (who were the victims of these attacks). Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 18:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regardless about whether it should be kept or deleted, it's hardly notable to be placed ITN. — D. Wo. 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of reliable mainstream coverage establishing notability. May be issues if there are other notable attacks after July 2009.  Esowteric |  Talk  19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is, in all probability, just some low-level crook trying and succeeding to get attention, and we're certainly not going to cover every time someone does that. Belgium EO (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's well sourced, has been covered in a variety of fora/media and meets notability requirements. This is not simply news, as the content differs substantially from the news reports in the press. Suspicions about what this is "in all probability" are totally irrelevant to this discussion as well as OR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There does not seem to be enough notable information to continue to allow this article. The article attempts to make lengthy two items that could be better placed into their appropriate subject matter. I would recommend placing the North Korean connection into the Foreign relations of North Korea article (once founded) and moving the DDoS information into the DDoS Incidents section. Finally, the In the News section should have linked to a WikiNews article instead of a new Wikipedia article. Inomyabcs (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Well, I think that the information is useful to a certain extent, but the reliability of the article (not the information itself) is somewhat questionable.-- Vintei  Talk  19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We have already established the notability of this event and it has received significant coverage from major news sources. 71.89.55.123 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep And in view of the overwhelming support for a keep I propose to do this speedily. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable, well-sourced, and more information should be forthcoming as the story unfolds. And I second  Debresser.  Make it a speedy keep.--MicahBrwn (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is actually current discussion on various security lists on the fact that these "cyber attacks" as the media likes to call them are over-hyped. Ref . I feel this falls into the category of WP:NOTNEWS. If it's decided to be kept, I strongly encourage that this type of information also make its way into the article for NPOV. (However, voting delete because I don't think that the event is notable.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the sentiment there, I don't think that source you gave qualifies as a reliable source. I suspect over time, more commentary will surface though that is in more reliable sources.  Cazort (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Several strong reasons to keep. First of all, this is definitely notable by now. It's mentioned in the ITN and I can see reports in newspapers and media. Second, there are already other languages' editions on this articles, some articles in Wikipedia don't even have other language's edition. Although this article is a little bit short doesn't mean we have to delete it. As I said before in the AfD of 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia, I see no reason to delete this article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep it at least until it is no longer a current event.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not at all a valid rationale for keeping an article on Wikipedia. This is not Wikinews. --LjL (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Insignificant event that will not be remembered even next week. Can be rewritten if it turns out to be a 9/11 and 3,000 people die. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is useful information for people studying such problems, and may prove to be of some importance in the future, especially for researchers. 24.22.15.77 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, accusations of cyberterrorism, even if proven false make this notableComhreir (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, way overblown hype. Nothing to see here folks, move along... --Manway (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per my comments above. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (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.