This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
@Chris troutman why don't you think this group is notable enough for it's own article? Also, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article that you redirect it to. Scu ba (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba: Why did you write this relying upon likely Ukrainian propaganda? I did what you would not do and searched for other sources, so I won't argue subject notability. Your overreliance on a website which says itself it's a "volunteer initiative... of more than 30 volunteers from over 10 countries." is concerning. Wikipedia has a deeper list of volunteers and still fails SPS. Do we need an RfC on InformNapalm? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a covert group? Russia doesn't tend to brag about secret paramilitary groups they use to destabilize Ukraine during the war in the Donbas when they where simultaneously claiming that Russia had no involvement whatsoever in the conflict. InformNapalm still has an editorial process, if you think that isn't sufficient then yeah, open an RfC. If you don't think what they said in any of the citations were accurate, please elaborate on proven disinformation. And again, this article isn't solely built on information from there. You could remove it, should it be proven false, and there is still have enough content and citations to keep this article up. Scu ba (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba: As I've said, there are better sources out there. Why did you rely on InformNapalm? Lazy? Political angle? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything InformNaplam said false? If so please share. This is the third time I asked. It just sounds like you don't like the website arbitrarily. If anyone has a political angle it's you for arbitrarily deleting this page without consensus. Scu ba (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re InformNaplam as a WP:RS - not in my opinion. A reliable source is one that has editorial oversight for fact checking/review. I have read the home and about pages. Nothing I see evidences editorial oversight. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll remove them and look for more sources. Scu ba (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, InformNapalm looks reliable. They are declaring how they work[1], they are no wiki (i.e. not everbody can edit), their founders have real life names and are journalists. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given InformNapalm's status as a volunteer resource with no editorial oversight and its direct participation in cyberwarfare against Russia, I reckon its not a reliable source.--Catlemur (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see "direct participation in cyberwarfare against Russia" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Catlemur yeah can you elaborate on the cyber warfare bit? Scu ba (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of that section is unsourced and the sources of the second one look dubious or seem to be primary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the main source of that section I could find no justification for "cyber warfare" and removed the term from that article. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)