Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian influence operations in Estonia

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

The article is in breach of WP:POVFORK, because it discusses one aspect of Estonia-Russia relations without providing any context or contrasting views. It is also in breach of WP:SYNTH: the article puts different events under the title "Russian influence operations in Estonia," although there is no evidence that the events are part of any such "influence operations." Third, I'd like to point out that there are no similar articles in Wikipedia; there is no American influence operations in Europe or American influence operations in (name your country). Speculating whether this or that event is actually part of "influence operations" by another country is a popular subject in political journals. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a journal. It should not have articles about pure political speculation. Offliner (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Expand and rename to Russian-Estonian information warfare. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. I'll think about it before I know how to vote.  However, I'd like to point out that this article's topic is about influence, not information.  For information warfare, there's an interesting writeup by Diana Jurgelevičiūtė. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the potential confusion with the Estonian Cyberwar. Can you offer an alternative title that would alleviate this confusion risk? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant topic. PetersV     TALK 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment re Petri's, current title indicates Russian operations within the territorial boundaries of Estonia, "information warfare" is a topic I could support, but that is something other than the article here. PetersV     TALK 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Estonia-Russia relations and then Delete. There is nothing in this that can't be succinctly covered in the bilateral relations article. What we have here is the Estonian KGB feeding tit-bits of information to the Estonian media to serve their own purposes. This should be covered in Estonian-Russia relations where it will be able to be given context. --Russavia Dialogue 00:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the Estonian KGB feeding this information to the media, does not make a subject notable, and dare I say it, is actually an example of WP:NOTADVOCATE. In much the same way that we would not create an article on Glorification of it's Nazi past by Estonia, based upon information fed to the media by the FSB; and I would say that would be a much more notable topic. It is much better to have this article within the Estonia-Russia relations article whereby it is given context of their overall relationship; Estonia-Russia relations is not bursting at the seams by any stretch of the imagination, so there is no need for a WP:POVFORK/WP:CFORK such as this. --Russavia Dialogue 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Factual correction: the so-called "Estonian KGB" (actually a local branch of KGB) ceased to exist when the Soviet Union went belly-up almost two decades ago. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A separate, notable and sourced subject. Of course one can present opposite "pro" and "contra" views in the article. AfD is not the proper place to debate merging.Biophys (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Biased original research (WP:SYN) on non-notable topic.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant topic, relevant to many countries that border Russia.Galassi (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Phenomenon described by the Kaitsepolitsei and reported on in the media for quite a few years now, so certainly notable and not WP:SYNTH. Martintg (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Now all we need is for User:Digwuren to pop in and we have the usual keeps. :) --Russavia Dialogue 01:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well why not, he created the article. It would be pretty unusual to create an article and then subsequently vote "delete". I think your comment borders on violation of WP:AGF. Martintg (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Martintg, please mate, lose the hard on, there's no reason we can't be jovial, is there? --Russavia Dialogue 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly protest Russavia's remark, which not only displays his customary incivility, but can also be seen as a form of sexual harassment. (This isn't the first time, either: see, where just the other day Russavia referred to Martintg as "our resident Tasmanian Estophile" in the same line as a reference to "two headed Tasmanian fellatio".) Such inappropriate language has no place here. Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and help keep a productive editing environment. - Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Estonia-Russia relations or Delete. Admittedly I can't read the Estonian-language sources, but it seems to me that this article has inherent problems with WP:POV and WP:OR, by stating these claims as fact, that no amount of editing could reasonably fix. Robofish (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge There is not presently really enough specific content for a separate article. DGG (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this means "keep" and then discuss merging of the content?Biophys (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, as a properly sourced article on an important topic on the Northeastern European international politics. I can not support any renaming at this time, as my concerns regarding potential confusion (see above) have not been answered. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You say it is fully sourced, yet you keep removing fact tags placed by another editor and you call it disruption in the edit summary. So no, the article is not properly sourced. --Russavia Dialogue 12:02, 9 May 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.