Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism


 * 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-ish but rename. Alright, there is clearly no support for deletion and the sources mentioned here for the topic are only weakly contested. A number of editors are advocating a merger but I don't see a consensus for that, also because of the conflicting proposed targets. Finally, it seems like the preponderant opinions want to keep the article but under a different name, for which I will start a move request Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a WP:POINTy riff on Animal attacks and its subpages (which are absolute disasters). Article creator went from editing Animal attacks to creating Squirrel attacks and then Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania, culminating in creating this page and nominating it for DYK. Animal attacks is a disaster, Template:Animal bites and stings is a collection of disasters, and DYK sometimes lets inane or incorrect stuff through. Is there some kind of worthy article about the dangers of squirrels behind what appears to be a bunch of WP:POINTS?Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Good sources: Washington Post and BBC, to name a few.--Biografer (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete a blatant hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to animal attacks. I don't think there is enough here for stand-alone notability. That animals are a threat to infrastructure certainly deserves a section in that article, at least, and that squirrels have been known to damage electrical/Internet infrastructure, may deserve a few sentences, but WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a dedicated article saying that few people compared squirrels to terrorist. Also, the name is very hoax-ish. Does remind me of WP:BJAODN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename or Merge with Squirrel. Despite the cheeky title, it's well documented that squirrels do cause numerous power outages. In addition to the cited articles see this piece from Foreign Policy that compares squirrel damage to the electrical grid against deliberate espionage. The information is encylopedic; it needs a more encyclopedic presentation. Since this is infrastructure damage it seems the main article about squirrels would be more suitable than animal attacks, although either could be feasible. Skrydstrup (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't delete or the squirrels will attack Wikipedia! Jokes aside, merge to animal attacks sounds good. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename or Merge with Squirrel and Infrastructure asset management. Animal attacks is completely off-topic: it's an article about violence against persons, not accidental damage to property. Squirrel attacks is similarly focused on violence against persons. — Llywelyn II   06:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. This is a legitimate comparison scenario in political science., , ,  Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Tone is a bit unencyclopedic, but it's a topic that is covered in reliable sources, even if you think the title should be changed to something a bit more dull. And it's clearly not a hoax: it's something covered in print and therefore encyclopedic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I created the article in good faith. I had never heard of WP:POINTfy until this morning. I am not even aware of being frustrated about any wikipedia policy and I have not any point to make. I also created the article Animal attacks and so I can't be motivated to produce a parody of that article or its editors. This article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the specific topic of Squirrel related cyberterroism. The sources cast it in this light, not me. They have made the topic a parody. This stand alone article has been created with WP:GNG in mind. My intent is to adhere, in good faith, to these guidelines.
 * This article a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * The secondary sources WP:SECONDARY are reliable, verifiable, and from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG
 * It contains no original research
 * The independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject (squirrels) or someone affiliated with them.
 * WP is not (WP:NOT) a repository of everything and this article is not a dictionary entry, definition, a usage, slang, and/or idiom guide, personal essay, discussion forum, advocacy forum, personal attack on squirrels, scandal-mongering, self promotion, marketing, advertising, internet directory, blog, personal web page, memorial or dating service.
 * The topic is not new and can be found in sources from previous years and even decades.
 * The article was just created yesterday and has not had time to be fully expanded with reliable sources.
 * The category Animal attacks contains other similar articles, some which aren't as adequately sourced as this one. That is to say, articles on attacks by different animals are quite common. Even more common are the articles that are categorized by the deaths of people by animal attacks.
 * Though arguably a humorous topic, the humor comes from the sources, not the editor (me). I am sure that creating a non-humorous article about a humorous topic can be done, but it doesn't need to be done in that way.
 * Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has good sources and the topic was very interesting. User:Barbara (WVS) assumed good faith in writing the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename (and rewrite, in part). Damage done to electric and electronic infrastructure by squirrel action is a real topic, and should be covered by the project in some capacity. That said, despite some sources taking a tongue-in-cheek approach to calling squirrels terrorists, the naming convention used here (and the overall tone) really just isn't compatible with WP:NPOV. Perhaps squirrel damage to infrastructure (which would also then include roof damage and the like)? I'm uncertain, and a broader review of literature might be needed to indicate the preferred title. A merger to animal attacks is demonstrably incorrect (those are attacks on persons, not property), and a merger to squirrel is substantially undue weight. The sources that make comparisons to the effect of actual terrorism have a place there (in a section, but not in a standalone article), although, again, keeping the tone appropriate will be important; this project does very much indeed expect a "non-humorous article about a humorous topic". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I might agree with you except there is precious little information in the sources regarding the threats to infrastructure. The sources are about squirrels. Not much of a comparison exists between squirrels and other forms of threats of infrastructure. Probably, the whole point of all the sources is that the damage that squirrels cause has been more significant than actual terrorist attacks on power grids. Unfortunately, the last sentence does not appear in the sources since so many of them parody the incidents rather than discuss the issue with a serious tone. The sources set the tone and call the squirrels pelzigen Selbstmordattentäter abgeschaltet worden. I don't have a point of view and the sources are not forming a battle against squirrels (surprisingly). This is not an article with a point of view. If it is, what is the point of view except to reflect what the sources have stated? Shall they be scolded and told to take the topic seriously? and describe other threats to infrastructure? I don't know anything about threats to infrastructures - but ask me about squirrels and I can write a whole series of articles...
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, perhaps squirrel damage to property is the ideal titling? In any case, reliable sources documenting damage to wood-shingle roofs, vehicle wiring, and cabling in several contexts are not challenging to locate. That aside, while project policy allows reliable sources to establish notability, it does not dictate that those same sources establish tone. This is neither titled nor written in "a formal tone" and a "businesslike manner". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe Squirrels as a threat to infrastructure? Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't get to have tantrums because the news media we identify as reliable sources to establish notability confer it on something that sounds silly to us. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Lots of WP:RS, so keeping it is not in doubt. No compliance with WP:Before.  The current title is catchy, but too cute by half.  It is a legitimate issue, but we need to be WP:NPOV, and the current title (which befits the front page of The National Enquirer) is just 'click bait' and over the top.  Probably needs to be restructured, too. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

*UPDATE* - Just to mess up renaming the article even more, content and a reference to the squirrel's ability to infiltrate nuclear missile sites now has been added to the article. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of this discussion that isn't an inherent problem. It certainly is encyclopedic to host information about a species that causes major infrastructure damage. Property damage caused by squirrels, perhaps? It still also seems feasible to incorporate this as a section into the main Squirrel article. Skrydstrup (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the Squirrel article is already too big to be incorporated in. I will suggest quite the opposite; Link this article to squirrel as Main.--Biografer (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Too large? Squirrel is a start-class article with only four paragraphs under the Behavior section. The article is list-heavy and it arguably has an oversized gallery, but lists and galleries aren't a barrier to expanding text sections with sourced information. Skrydstrup (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment squirrels are not sentient and do not use talk or use computers, therefore they cannot engage in cyber-terrorism. This article under this title should be speedy-deleted as a hoax.  Discussion of squirrels causing power events should be on a page with a different title. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I sense that no one has actually read the sources because in them, there is no mention of squirrels causing power events (the opposite is true), there is no mention of damage to wood-shingle roofs, vehicle wiring, and cabling or other property damage (except for chewed wires), and only power disruption and tunneling into nuclear sites are has been discussed by the sources. There is a solid, neutral point of view-no one is out to get the squirrels or make them look bad (they sacrifice their lives as they do their deeds). How about:
 * Squirrels as terrorists (parody)
 * Terrorist squirrels (parody)
 * Accusations of terrorism aimed at squirrels
 * Gnawing into the grid
 * Oh the lights just went out-I hope its just the squirrels again
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  22:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- Completely lacks notability. Marvellous. Hoax Spider-Man  07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite so true. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  10:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The article clearly needs a serious name Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Squirrel infrastructural damage. Passes WP:N. Then copy edit from there. North America1000 14:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep and rename Squirrel infrastructural damage, a far more accurate moniker.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing iVote to Delete unless renamed or redirected. This WP:POINTy joke has waseed too much editorial time. WP:TROUT article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I humbly accept being trouted. It is, truly, an honor. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Brutally cut down and merge to squirrel or perhaps to tree squirrel as this is a classic case of newspaper-space-filling WP:UNDUE. Really, this is, when all the puffery is taken out, basically a short paragraph in an article on squirrel behavior (which is what the "tree squirrel" article looks like now). One slack news day, someone figured out that it was cute to compare the risk to the power grid of squirrels as compared to terrorist attacks. Well, lots of other things are comparable: auto accidents which knock down poles, lightning strikes, fallen trees, clumsy construction workers.... But squirrels are cute, so squirrels got to be the framing device in articles on how low the terrorism threat (as measured in real incidents) actually is, coupled together with the usual hand-wringing about how vulnerable we supposedly are that is driven by reps for the security industrial complex. A few more years down the road, and this will have been a rash of copycat stories that didn't pan out. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, squirrels are cute but so are the Taliban men with thick mushy beards :). Joke aside, the article is good as it is. I don't see it being pointy or undue.--Biografer (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to Squirrel infrastructural damage or similar per WP:5P1. A catchy news hook ("the most dangerous cyberterrorists are squirrels!") for a well-documented topic (squirrel damage to exterior power/data lines and cables) has been wrongly used as a WP article title. Easy fix. Rename to a more encyclopedic title and brutally trim the obvious satirical content contained in sources (comparing squirrels to terrorists) that has been misrepresented as serious and inappropriately emphasized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename, clearly.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * rename per above quickly. before they cut our commo.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename cut the slightly tongue-in cheek tone, and could do with additional sources. I would argue it is as worthy of inclusion as The wrong type of snow, except that this is squirrels and not snow, if you get my drift. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless renamed or redirected as E.M.Gregory said above. Jokey but also internally inconsistent between title to content:  electrical outages are not the same as cyber attacks, not all cyber attacks are terrorism, the squirrels don't "sponsor" the activity (they would be lone wolves wouldn't they), ad nauseum.  Title is just a joke to attract attention (well done) and the sourced content might go somewhere else.  But not with this twee frame.  --Lockley (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, well written. Get over yourselves. Tvoz / talk 04:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, there are excellent reasons for keeping an encyclopedia sober. I agree that this would make a pretty great headline for an article. But, you know, there are countries where the press, even the government-backed press makes accusations of this sort.  I'm talking about Egyptian TV jounalists who accuse the Mossad of sending sharks to attack Egyptians in the Red Sea, and the Fars News Agency report on the Israeli use of spy dolphins Israel-related animal conspiracy theories.   Given the "7 times the Onion was lost in translation",  we really don't want to risk tricking, say, the Globe and Mail into reporting on the threat from Vermont-based cyberterrorist squirrels, and citing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't responding to an RFC on an article name change, I was responding to an AFD which I think is unwarranted. I would not necessarily object to a name change. (But sobriety does not necessarily have to be the goal 100% of the time.) Tvoz / talk 16:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And since when did Wikipedia became a news source in competition against Globe and Mail? Or am I missing something?--Biografer (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is probably not articles like this that fuel the ire of government-backed press, it might be articles like this, this and possibly this (though probably ok with Japan and the third graders). Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I nominated one of those for PROD. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (totally irrelevant) Comment, and lets not get started on Bunny muggings - "Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them." Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename and Salt - I still think this is too silly to keep even a redirect; if a new page name is agreed upon I don't object to keeping the content. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Further comment The point of the news pieces from which this article takes its name is not that squirrels are a threat to infrastructure, but that hackers aren't. They start from the position that squirrels are a routine problem, just like falling trees and storms, and use it to ridicule yet another bit of security paranoia. Well, OK: that's a couple of sentences in squirrel or tree squirrel, neither of which says anything on squirrels and power lines, and maybe another couple in whatever article on power distribution and the security thereof. And once those articles actually say what they need to say, this article become completely redundant, not to say padded. This isn't even vaguely encyclopedic as it tries to justify sitting off by itself. Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename and fix accordingly — It seems that damage by squirells may be notable enough for clickbait titles to abound. I don't think we should fall into that though (we don't care if our title is sensationalist enough to attract as many clicks as possible)...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 03:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to the great editing by other editors, the article is in great shape and I am OKAY with the title Squirrel infrastructure damage which I think is an even more humourous title. Shall I just move it? Or do I wait until an administrator closes the discussion. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Improvements are welcome during AfD, but moves can make the process more complicated. The close is likely to be a keep, merge or rename consensus one, at which point it can be moved more easily (see the end of WP:AFDEQ for more details).  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  - 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename to something like Squirrel electrical grid damage or something specific to the grid. Squirrel infrastructure damage is too broad and would have to include the major damage they do to homes and such as well. Capeo (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse as better title. already used at Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania, which will probably be merged here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with proposed title. Renaming is inevitable; just a question of which name.  Since Squirrel Nut Zippers doesn't seem to fit.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 14 June 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.