Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections}})

WP:FUTURE Theoallen1 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as pure speculation. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• :{{u|JFG}}, what, precisely, is "speculative"? 2020 interference is already happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:::Says who? — JFG ^talk 06:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

::::{{u|JFG}}, says the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::Reliable sources speculate on all sorts of things; we are not required to echo it all. — JFG ^talk 07:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{u|JFG}}, the reliable sources are reporting on the heads of U.S. intelligence. {{tq|Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included}}, – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Well, fine, U.S. intelligence agencies say something, Russians say otherwise, and the opposite is happening as well, with Russian intelligence agencies claiming that the U.S. has been interfering in their elections, and the U.S. denying it. Same with numerous other countries: these are run-of-the-mill geopolitical struggles and propaganda messaging. That deserves not more than a paragraph under the generic Foreign electoral intervention page. Why not just merge there until and unless there's more meat to the matter? — JFG ^talk 19:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|JFG}}, because there's already enough "meat" for its own page. This is no "run-of-the-mill geopolitical struggle": that phrase is an oxymoron. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::Ah you don't believe that geopolitical struggle is a run-of-the-mill affair? Well, let's agree to disagree then. {{p}} — JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It's not staring into a crystal ball to write about something that has already started. (To elaborate upon a [https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/russia-trump-election-interference/index.html reference] already in the article, {{tq|"They are doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign"}} [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-no-russia-exoneration-for-trump-despite-his-claims/2019/07/24/428d5a0c-ae85-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html]. And it's not speculation on our part to report that {{tq|Mueller expressed fears that hostile government interference in US elections, and political candidates failing to report it, may become “the new normal”}} [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/robert-mueller-hearing-special-counsel-testifies-trump-russia].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• :Another thing that should be mentioned is the [https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf Senate Intelligence Committee report] from the other day which includes recommendations for 2020 ([https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html some of them blacked out]). XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• :Forgot to say this before, but WP:FUTURE literally states, {{tq|Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included}}, which is the only kind of "speculation" that this page is doing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I knew someone was going to nominate this for deletion. As XOREaster, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats have said, interference in the 2020 elections is already happening. I have more sources to incorporate into this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections: WP:FUTURE does not apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• :It is worth echoing a point that {{ping|Jbhunley|p=}}, among others, made in that previous discussion: {{tq|For those of you who are not familiar with the US election process ... they are long drawn out affairs. Not the relatively short things you see in most Parliamentary Democracies like Australia or the UK.}} XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:Keep because there are plenty of reliable sources about it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The November 4, 2024 Presidential Election is blocked for 15 months and is currently a draft page. The 2018 page needs to be substantially reworked, or merged into the 2018 investigation timeline. The page should be moved to a draft until we see evidence of interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• :Your nomination counts as your !vote. This page is not the place to discuss improvements to the article on Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The first four sources in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections&oldid=908173001 the current version of the article], all specifically about Russian interference in the 2020 US elections, published in Reuters, The New York Times, Time, and NBC News, and another later source on the same topic from Newsweek, make a clear case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Per {{u|XOR'easter}}, this is not "speculation" of the kind WP:CRYSTAL talks about: it is verifiable that these things have been claimed by notable authorities. It does not even appear to be a future event, in that the interference is supposedly happening right now. May merit a POV check but that's all. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete until after the election, then create it and say how surprised we all were. Just kidding... Keep, obviously. EEng 01:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV, much as we keep pages on major candidacies and ballot campaigns for upcoming elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Fake news. People have been beating this "Russia bad America good" drum endlessly.80.111.42.123 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• :That is, to put it mildly, not a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• :User blocked as a sock of {{noping|Claíomh Solais}} {{NAcmt}} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This is specifically discussed in reliable sources. Robert Mueller's statement that this is occurring was extensively reported on. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete for now - I wouldn't be opposed to recreation if more stuff comes out from reliable sources about interference in 2020. Right now, though, there's not enough, so I'm voting in favor of deletion. Jdcomix (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - extensive significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. There has already been extensive significant coverage in a variety of independent reliable sources, and this is only going to increase in the next months and years. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• :Heck, it'll probably increase tomorrow. Such is life, these days. XOR'easter (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• :... Case in point [https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article233239221.html][https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/all-washington-house-democrats-now-favor-impeachment-inquiry-of-trump/]. XOR'easter (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether this is actually happening or we merely have political scaremongering (or in extremis even if this were a conspiracy theory) - enough WP:RSes (and notable US political figures) are discussing this - passing GNG. One could lament Wikipedia editors spending so much time on speculative future American political issues (and on this issue being rehashed over and over again - one could perhaps argue for a merge to a general Russian interference article (as opposed to having a separate one for each country/election year)) - however it does pass Wikipedia notability thresholds. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• :A merged page would actually be a splendid idea. Too much of the same information and same context is being rehashed between those articles indeed. — JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• :: I do not believe anyone is suggesting deleting the content. However, there is need for a greater discussion and a common talk page for the Russian Interference articles.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• ::: If the intent was not to have the content deleted, then a merge discussion should have been initiated, rather than an AFD. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• :::: Since 2016, alleged Russian interference has been discussed in every single election in the West - so some sort of merge (+discussion/referral in the main election article) could make sense (and our relevant pages look like intel assessment timelines). While merger can be an AfD outcome, in this case this is a multi-page merge (including more established pages than this one) into a non-existing combined page - which is a complex outcome for AfD (and probably should be discussed in a merger discussion published in the relevant wikiProjects).Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• ::::: Yes, I can think of multiple organizational schemes that would be at least defensible, and hashing out that kind of thing is not what AfD is suited for. XOR'easter (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only will this article be created, if it were deleted, the new RSs regarding this topic would be best suited going here now; as per previous "Keep" arguements. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only this is already a significant subject and actually happening (as Mueller said), but this is going to be a lot bigger. Poor USA. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable and relevant subject for an article. Follow WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The article's creator had this in it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections&oldid=907745769] before anyone else edited the article: "President Donald Trump said that he would accept foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 United States presidential election". That is not what the referenced New York Times article said, and it is worded to mislead people. I changed it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections&type=revision&diff=908511195&oldid=908502698&diffmode=source] to: "President Donald Trump said that he would accept information from other nations about his opponents in the 2020 United States presidential election." Any valid information about this can be found in Foreign electoral intervention no need for this article to exist. Dream Focus 05:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. What specifically did Russians do that we can write about in this article? Right now it's mostly speculation.

:The Russian descriptor should be removed if an article like this is to stay.

:"Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, believes that Russia and China will both attempt to influence the elections."

:"In his Congressional testimony, Mueller stated that "many more countries" have developed disinformation campaigns based partly on the Russian model. Between January and late July 2017, Twitter had identified and shut down over 7,000 phony accounts created by Iranian influence operations." Blumpf (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Blumpf}}, I was thinking of either moving this article to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections, or splitting off the pieces on Iran and China to a different article. But that will have to wait until after the AFD closes.– Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|Muboshgu}} I support the creation of Iranian and Chinese interference articles, but I cannot support lumping all foreign interference in the 2020 elections. Russia is quite clearly the main actor, and I fear Iran and China may not have enough documentation for 2020 to deserve splitting the article with Russia. We already have Foreign electoral intervention anyway, which is where the less documented Iranian and Chinese interferences should belong in my opinion, until more RS coverage and development happen at least. --Pilaz (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of references on this subject, concerns about misleading information on/being added to this article can be mitigated by pagewatchers and possibly protecting the page, discusson about a possible merge to a catchall article can be made on the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Editors in favor of deleting have raised two main criticisms: #1 WP:FUTURE, on the grounds that this constitutes speculation (Theoallen1, JFG, Blumpf); #2 That the information is redundant to Foreign electoral intervention (Dream Focus). Let me address each separately. Argument #1 rebuttal: First, while per WP:FUTURE it is policy that {{tq|Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions}}, WP:FUTURE also clearly states that {{tq|Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included}}. Moreover, WP:FUTURE states that {{tq|1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.}} Given that the election is an expected future event and that Russian election interference is expected to continue in 2020 according to the intelligence community, WP:FUTURE would actually be argument to keep the article, and not delete it. But I dispute that WP:FUTURE applies here, like several other editors have done before me, on the grounds that Russian interference in the 2020 election is already happening. That's because the term election isn't strictly to be interpreted as only election day, but also as the campaigns that precede it, the nominations, and political processes that culminate in the election; in short, election stands for election cycle. The Russian interference in the 2016 United States election article can be a good illustration of this point. Let's now turn to examples which show that this event is not happening in the future, but as we speak. (1) When former FBI director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, one of the foremost experts on Russian interference in the 2016 election, was asked by congressman Hurd at a hearing on July 25 at the House Intelligence Committee whether the 2016 interference was an isolated attempt by Russia or whether he found evidence that they would interfere again, Mueller stated under oath that "They're doing it as we sit here". [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/russia-trump-election-interference/index.html] (see also 4:22). (2) FBI director Christopher Wray also stated on July 24 that "My view is until they stop they haven't been deterred enough", implying that the Russians had not stopped interfering. [https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/07/24/russia-intent-on-interfering-with-us-elections-fbi-director-says-a66547] Wray had previously stated on April 26 that disinformation by Russia has "pretty much continued unabated", stating that "That is not just an election-cycle threat. It is pretty much a 365-day-a-year threat." [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html] (3) DNI director Dan Coats also listed political interference second in his list of threats while at a congressional at a January 29 hearing about worldwide threats, notably releasing a joint written threat assessment that reads "Russia's social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians".[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-intel-agencies-russia-and-china-plotting-to-interfere-in-2020-election/ar-BBSTYZ6] This multitude of examples highlights that national security experts believe that Russian interference in 2020 elections is underway. If Delete supporters still think that WP:FUTURE applies here, I believe that they will have to confront the fact that Russian interference in 2020 is near-certain based on the expertise of the national security and intelligence community, which fulfills the {{tq|almost certain to take place}} WP:FUTURE standard. Argument #2 rebuttal: the claim that information present in the current article is a duplicate of what is found in Foreign electoral intervention can be invalidated by simply looking at the latter article - there is no mention of 2020, yet. That is because the article deals with foreign electoral intervention in multiple countries by multiple foreign entities over the course of over 150 years. This means that each interference gets a few lines of content and is later expanded upon in a dedicated article. One can see that the content found in the Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is already at least triple the size of the portion allotted to each interference in the article. While a small heading for 2020 interference is surely welcome, it should not act as a substitute for the article here. A word of conclusion: this does not mean that the article is bulletproof in many ways - as other have pointed out, some material such as Iranian interference may be removed and NPOV should be checked given the development of the issue, but those are best addressed in the Talk page and not in the AfD. Hence, the clear answer to me: the article is a current event which passes WP:GNG, and even WP:FUTURE if it is not current as other have argued. --Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• :Yes, this article, perhaps renamed to "Foreign interference" instead of just "Russian", would be the thing that a paragraph-sized subsection in Foreign electoral intervention would link to with the {{tl|main}} template. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

::Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections would fine, as the potential for more than just Russia has been raised by various US officials. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::Keeping this article as "Russian interference" and potentially having a catch-all too of "Foreign interference" with Chinese/Iranian/etc would likely be better. We need to get past the AfD before details. X1\ (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:::If this decision is to keep, a controversial move discussion of this article to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections is needed. Currently, this page is a redirect to the page Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. This article is about foreign interference, not specifically about Russian interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per {{U|Pilaz}}. This is the subject of significant coverage and commentary in reliable sources. It's not in the future - Robert Mueller swore it's going on in July 2019. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Per my !vote in the AfD for the earlier article this should be kept. Reporting on Russian (and other nations') interference in US elections is ongoing, both historical and in the upcoming 2020 elections. CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. The Democratic Primary campaign season is ongoing and "election" refers to the campaign season here in the US not simply to polling day.

  I strongly disagree which the idea, above, of renaming this to "Foreign Interference" or any similar, diluted, title. The issue is the ongoing Russian operation to screw with the US elections. Other countries may hop on board but none other have been reported as having a significant, government sponsored policy of messing in Western elections for strategic purposes.

  I am posting this as a "comment" rather than a "keep" since I was pinged here and would not have commented here otherwise. Jbh ^Talk 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

:I am not for renaming the article to "Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections"

• Keep per Pilaz. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, because they're already using proxy troll farms to influence the election right here on Wikipedia; see, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_M._Gordon&diff=908982051&oldid=908956831 this vandalism] from the wee hours of this morning. Bearian (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

:: I believe you've already made use of your !vote on July 30. --Pilaz (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I forgot! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

::In a way, it's too bad we can't write about Moldovan troll farms trying to edit Wikipedia until someone else writes about it first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep No doubt Putin & Friends would love to see this page deleted, but there are citations documenting attempts to influence the next election. The subject is therefore notable. Zaathras (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.