Deletion of Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism

Comment: 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 . 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 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BJAODN)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Lots of , so keeping it is not in doubt.  No compliance with efore.  The current title is catchy, but too cute by half.  It is a legitimate issue, but we need to be , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:B||WP:NPOV)

Comment: and rename to Squirrel infrastructural damage. Passes . Then copy edit from there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: or perhaps to tree squirrel as this is a classic case of newspaper-space-filling . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I created the article in good faith. I had never heard of fy 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  in mind. My intent is to adhere, in good faith, to these guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:GNG)