Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:34, 31 December 2024

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. The notability of this article subject doesn't seem to be in question and the fact that the subject no longer exists is irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. Any problems with NPOV or bias can be addressed through diligent and fair editing. It was unfortunate that the nominator effectively bludgeoned this discussion and cast baseless aspersions against editors whose opinions they disagreed with despite the fact that they themselves are a very new editor. But I'll add that since problems were pointed out in regards to this article, I hope that experienced editors can give it a thorough copy-editing to ensure it meets Misplaced Pages standards. Liz 22:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Appin (company)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Articles for deletion/Appin (company)
• Articles for deletion/Appin (company) (2nd nomination)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Appin (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appin closed in 2013. The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP:SOCK (see latest changes). Delete according to WP:ATTACK which summarizes that the article has a denigrating purpose, rather than an informational one. WP:NPOV and WP:LBL, because the article is only about calmony even if it is quoted by notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I verified that the first deletion was met with a string of blocks, which is why decided to send an initial message to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, following which agreed to initiate these discussions directly.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - As article creator; company clearly meets WP:GNG. If nom has WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV concerns, could those get discussed on the talk page before going to AfD? If there are WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV issues on an article for a notable subject, the remedy is to address the issues on the page, not delete. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Which editors percisely are you calling possible WP:SOCKs? Regardless, even if you're right, can't we just remove whatever content they've added? NickCT (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the previous AfD, which clearly shows the article meets WP:NORG. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. Astaire (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as it clearly meets WP:NORG with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @NoWarNoPeace and @John Bukka took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tristancr (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: "Delete according to WP: ATTACK" is total nonsense. Per WP: ATTACK, in order for this page to be deleted, the nominator would need to explain why there are no diffs that we can revert to. That's going to be an uphill battle, given that the current state of the article does not read like an attack page. The nominator has said themselves that WP: GNG is met, so there's nothing to discuss and the article should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or an article renaming, such as Appin hacking..... According to the delete nominator, I agree that this article is not informative, considering that the company is no longer active.--Bexaendos (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ONE EVENT, Illegal conduct and failing WP:NORG. This company is only known for the single event of a legal challenge by its founders against Reuters which published an article the company founders deemed defamatory. There was no media notice of the company before the suit and certainly there will be no further media coverage of the company when the litigation ends as the company is now defunct. Though the sources in the article are WP:RS, most are tertiary sources reporting from the Reuters report not their own original reporting and cannot be substantially relied upon per WP: Tertiary Sources.

This also appears to breach WP: Illegal Conduct which states that “It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline”. The company would have zero notability if the sources arising from the alleged hacking operation are taken out. I will change my vote if sources that demonstrate that the company meets WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC without the use of the sources from the single event of the court case. Runmastery (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ONEEVENT applies to people, not organizations. Regarding WP:ILLCON, you are omitting the last part of that paragraph which says However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. Taking a look at WP:CRIME, we find that the perpetrators of a crime are eligible for a Misplaced Pages article if The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. This clearly applies in this case. According to this Reuters article, the targets of Appin included internationally prominent entities such as Boris Berezovsky, Mohamed Azmin Ali, Leonel Fernández, and the Pakistani and Chinese militaries. Astaire (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Most of the article discusses a lawsuit and other behavior aimed at Reuters and other reporting entities who covered its activities. The recent lifting of the injunction was written about. And it continues to be discussed.Oblivy (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This appears to be a bad-faith nomination based on policy abuse. This is the second time this page has been nominated for deletion by someone with a handful of edits. This page has been the target of malicious edits, including the intentional removal of vital information in the guise of policy enforcement, sometimes by blocked sockpuppets (see the talk page for details). Recently, an Indian court ruled in favor of Reuters, reinstating the article that Appin tried to bury by misrepresenting the facts. The court explicitly stated that Appin has no right to interfere with the journalistic process . There seems to be a pattern here, with many articles exposing how Rajat Khare and Appin use heavy-handed tactics against publishers to suppress the truth—a few of which are cited on this article's page. The EFF has documented a campaign of intimidation and censorship by Rajat Khare and Appin, aimed at erasing stories about their mercenary hacking operations . Furthermore, a recent investigation by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reveals a coordinated global effort by Rajat Khare and Appin to bully media outlets into removing their stories. , as well as coverage on their YouTube channel . HARRISONSST (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)— HARRISONSST (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <- this comment was writting by the person who nominated this page for deletion and has been told to stop harassing editors. Normally, I don't respond to trolls, but he created his account just 2.5 months ago-right when the Indian court threw out Appin's lawsuit Special:Contributions/Dmitry_Bobriakov.

• Checking the history of this editor, I realized that all its changes are only for Appin and all of them have been reverted. And the way he edits the article shows an interest in the article and a possible WP:SOCK.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have nothing to say about what I wrote? You have nothing to say about the dozens and dozens of news organizations that called out Rajat Khare and Appin's antics? I realize that they generously provide employment opportunities to aspiring Misplaced Pages editors who misrepresent facts that are easy to verify, but the problem is they usually get caught in their own web of lies—the person who nominated this article for deletion the first time User:Metroick was blocked for sock puppetry. As I said, these things follow a pattern. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the same person who has been desperately trying to whitewash this article for the past year. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- obviously meets WP:GNG, and the arguments of the nom are irrelevant, with other solutions available to address any concerns about editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep -- the hacking activity of this company and the associated malware used was tracked by numerous security and threat intelligence firms around the world, including CrowdStrike, Sentinel One, Microsoft, Google/Mandiant, Cymmetria, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Qihoo 360 Security, Shadowserver, etc. Lippard (talk) Lippard (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep -- The subject is still relevant due to recent legal lifting of injuctions and other legal ramifications. Furthermore the subject had a general historical impact on cyber security and is Notable for that per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. In addition the proposal to delete the article for issues that could be resolved by editing is not in line with WP:ATD Espatie (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This message is exclusively for the editor who will close this nomination! The controversy of this article doesn't end there, because as far as I've checked, a number of editors have an obvious interest in the article because of this and I've notified that there is a risk for a WP:SOCK. This edit with comment we are so back, baby, is made by a UK editor, and another editor interested in UK politics (who has a few edits and has never participated in the deletion discussion). Another editor who miraculously after a while got activated and participated in the deletion discussion. Including this editor who is only interested in this article and his changes have all been canceled. I want to believe it's a coincidence, but I'm not sure in this. More recently the discussion has been labeled not a ballot, which certainly has place in this discussion (since it is trying in any way to keep the article and mass voting), without seeing the real problem of the article. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I guess the question the editor should be asking is why you, with a 2.5-month-old account and about 100 edits, are so desperate to delete this page—after the Reuters article came back up—that you would cast doubt on those participating in good faith, specially given the extensive history of Rajat Khare and Appin in burying the truth, as well as the fact that this deletion request is basically a bad-faith nomination rooted in policy abuse. Since you keep on mentioning sockpuppets, the editor should also consider the fact that the person who first nominated this article for deletion User:Metroick was blocked for sock puppetry, as well as the sockpuppets who have been attempting to remove vital information from the article for the past year. HARRISONSST (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I find it very telling that you are focused on denigrating the contributions of other editors by calling people sockpuppets sans evidence, but you have made no effort whatsoever to address the Misplaced Pages policy issues that editors have raised in response to your AfD request. Please address the policy issues in question, rather than indulging in ad hominem comments in an attempt to discount input with which you disagree. Espatie (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - if the article seems to be too denigrating in its tone, then it is only a matter of its proper edition. Neither this issue nor the existence of the described company is a factor of the informative character, as long as it describes fact and also - as some people above noted - the controversy, in which Appin had been involved, has not ended. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. I’m actually baffled as to shy someone would nominate this. The article reads as pretty neutral and well-written to me, though it would benefit from expanding it to add detail of what they actually did, rather than just their litigious activities (are there possibly additional non-English language sources that would assist?). Either way, we do not delete articles with NPOV issues; we fix them. David Palmer//cloventt 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• The sources you call notable only describe their litigious activities. Then I wonder how they vote so actively en masse (copy-paste) without anyone verifying the information. As you say other information needs to be added about the company (which generally doesn't exist), and all the sources and information are about their litigious activities! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Does your interpretation of WP:ILLCON also cover civil litigation brought by the company? Oblivy (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of sources. As for "The article is facing a string of changes" perhaps the article should be protected (I take no position on that) but in any case there are other ways to handle that than deletion. Kingdon (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not on the basis of nomination reason because articles are not deleted for WP:NPOV, they are edited and cleaned. And for the proposal that this article constitute libel and should be deleted, that reasoning does not apply because if anyone should sue for libel it should be the news organisations that published the story not Misplaced Pages that cited those sources. Before search showed that this was an obscure company pre Reuters publication and had nothing that could be used to prove its existence. It is the subsequent litigation which followed that brought it to public attention. I support the argument by Runmastery that if WP:ILLCON is applied to this article, it would not stand. Most of the sources are to the Reuters reporting and the continuing ligation. The alleged victims of the hacking are notable as listed in the Reuters reporting, but the report did not give details of how they were hacked, it is only passing mentions. None of the alleged victims made public complaints of being hacked or filed any lawsuit against the company and no other news organisations reported the hacking other than Reuters. WP:ILLCON is applicable here because the alleged victims were not widely reported by other news organisations. And I see that none of the victim is listed or discussed in this article. There is no wide coverage of the hacking and its victims in multiple sources other than Reuters reporting. There are tons of civil cases out there and this is one of such. Nothing special in this. Seminita (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument is based on misinformation.

  --

  1. User: Runmastery's argument misrepresents WP:ILLCON, as the comments have pointed out . Specifically, it omits the part that states: However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME.

  --

  2. Regarding your notability claim that there is no wide coverage beyond the Reuters report, A LOT OF reputable sources have documented Rajat Khare and Appin's mercenary hacking operations: The New Yorker , Wired , Reporters Without Borders (RSF) , RSF's YouTube channel , EFF , Dark Reading Archived , Freedom of the Press , Columbia Journalism Review , The Wire Archived , The Daily Beast , The Times , Lawfare , and many, many more.

  --

  3. Not that it makes the slightest different to whether the Appin page should stay or not, there are articles that provide details of how Rajat Khare and Appin's mercenary hacking operations operated. Here is one from Security Week that I found with a casual Internet search . SentinelOne also published an article . It's been temporarily removed due to heavy-handed intimidation tactics, but is still available on archive.org .

  --

  4. Your statement that none of Rajat Khare and Appin's victims made complaints of being hacked, and that none are listed or discussed in the article, is both false and irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think you've even read the Reuter's article and you are just throwing a bunch of random issues at the page, hoping something sticks. The Reuters article explicitly mentions a father-and-son duo—Peter and Stevie Hargitay—who detected a cyber intrusion and filed a criminal complaint with Swiss authorities. Their hired expert traced the hack to a server near Zurich, with billing records identifying Rajat Khare as the client. They claimed that their personal and business data had been compromised as part of a targeted hacking campaign. Other articles also document Rajat Khare and Appin's victims, but I've wasted enough time on this reply. HARRISONSST (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Being a special account created for this article, where all edits are exclusive to the article. You say you don't have time to edit, but funny, huh? Whose WP:SOCK are you? Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you’re seeing SOCKS everywhere, you might want to consult a psychiatrist—logical arguments clearly won't help. HARRISONSST (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, the Appin page itself starts by explaining how the hacking was done. I forgot to mention this earlier but remembered it when rereading my reply. A 2013 report by Shadowserver Foundation . This means the person didn't even read the article. HARRISONSST (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The company is obviously notable. If we delete articles that received unwanted edits, we'd have no articles on controversial topics whatsoever. I've added the article to my watchlist and will protect if necessary. Brandon (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment 2 This message is exclusively for the editor who will close this nomination! Once I check which editors are participating in the discussion (which is voted on en masse, possibly being guest editors in an organized way). The following accounts , , all mentioned accounts about bluesky and mastodon (which again I don't think is a coincidence). The identical after a long period of time being inactive (now with all of you suddenly back to participate in discussions). Another editor who has no connection with the topic and has not participated in any discussion in general (being inactive for a while and now suddenly active). I do not judge and offend anyone because everyone is free to edit and contribute in their own way. But neither those who participate in this discussion have the right to fool an entire community. Because it is obvious that someone as organized as possible is contributing to this discussion. I hope that in the near time other editors with special rights will join to monitor this case! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  These comments are not helpful, please stop. User:Cloventt has ~100 edits in December 2024 alone. An editor having a Bluesky or Mastadon link on their user page is not relevant to a deletion discussion. If you have evidence of sock puppeting or canvasing take it to WP:SPI or WP:ANI and keep the deletion discussion about the merits of the article. Brandon (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  He's now adding notes under other editor's signatures to undermine them: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Appin_(company)_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1266391108. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  And who told you that it’s okay to call someone a sockpuppet just because they did something you didn’t like? As Brandon says, go to WP: SPA if you seriously feel that there is sockpuppeting involved. It is a serious accusation. Writing “This message is exclusively meant for the closer” is not a free pass to act however you please and does not shield you from criticism. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Major coverage that clearly demonstrates the company meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article appears to be well covered by sources (which I haven't checked myself, but it's not the suitability of the sources that's at issue here, if that is a problem it can be always brought up separately), and documents something that has been reported on, so far looking like events that happened. There is no such thing as "it's out of business, so let's delete it", otherwise AfDs on e.g. Enron and Watergate would have been fair game, not to mention extinct species. (One could argue part of the purpose of an Encyclopedia without hard small content limits would be to include that knowledge?)
  Lastly, and focusing on this discussion request as presented, I'm wondering if the purpose of the mentioned policy is even to include/allow this sort of article, WP:ATTACK seems to be written in a more ambiguous tone regarding non-person subjects, but G10 seems to be focused on people, besides libel (which I think this can't be if it's fully sourced?) or legal threats (which does suggest the intent of that section is completely different from this, it suggests it's more about spam pages that only have insults or threats against a person, and not articles that document events, with sources?). njsg (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Here's where that language got inserted. Both G10 (at the time and now) and the rest of the page IMHO seem person-oriented. Some of what they did is legitimate according to the article, and some of what they have done is either public record or has been reported on in secondary sources. I agree with you this isn't an attack page at all. Perhaps efforts would be better spent finding positive secondary coverage of the company to balance out the negative impressions. Oblivy (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets notability and has decent sources. I’d rather it be improved than removed. Ckoerner (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. No substantive case for community action that is (even at first glance) valid under the deletion policy. The question of ILLCON is interesting, but the supporting arguments have no basis. For example, sources are misidentified as tertiary, apparently based on an erroneous WP:LINKSINACHAIN analysis (As an aside, for article content, might note that investigative reports and breaking news are primary sources as defined by policy). A later claim that victims were not widely reported by other news organisations is, as a matter of policy, irrelevant, as there is no basis to require such in PAG, nor any requirement for coverage about how hacking occurred. The claim of certainly no further media coverage falls under WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NTEMP. I could go on, but the delete rationales seem completely defective given the sheer number of significant errors, and brings to mind the survival of certain forms of precipitation in infernal conditions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not particularly against keeping this, but the WP:ILLCON and the tertiary sources issues raised above are valid. The nom’s WP:ATTACK is incorrect, but WP:INHERITORG comes to my mind. Some of the sources referenced as establishing notability of the company are purely focused on civil case proceedings and giving passing mentions to the hacking which is the focal subject of the article. There is not sufficient significant coverage of the company itself imo. Hmr (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Appin page itself starts by explaining how the hacking was done. A 2013 report by Shadowserver Foundation . There is also extensive coverage on how the hacking was done, but it's not on the page yet. Here is one from SentinelOne , one from Security Week , and one from Dark Reading . HARRISONSST (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per WP: ILLCON R3DSH1FTT (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete This was a small pace training institute which was closed 11 years ago, has no relevance to make article after defunctioning of 11 years. WP:ILLCON is valid for this article. DanikS88 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your logic of deleting pages on things that died a long time ago means that we should also wipe Pan Am, Lehman Brothers, Woolworths, Compaq, and Blockbuster from Misplaced Pages. Even if that was cool, the coverage on Appin and Rajat Khare seems to be pretty big and pretty recent. I dunno. Reuters , The New Yorker , Wired #1 , Wired #2 , Reporters Without Borders (RSF) , RSF's YouTube channel , EFF , Dark Reading Archived , Freedom of the Press , Columbia Journalism Review , The Wire Archived , Times of India Archived , The Bureau of Investigative Journalism Archived , The Daily Beast , Sunday Times UK Archived , NDTV , Risky Biz News Lawfare , Techdirt , Citizen Lab , Gotham City , Intelligence Online , Timeline , Paperjam , Behind the Bastards , Tribune de Geneve , SRF Archived , Shadowserver Foundation , SentinelOne Archived , Security Week , Dark Reading Archived , and many, many more. HARRISONSST (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (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.