Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by Russia


 * 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. -- Dark Falls  talk 09:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
Our article on state terrorism tells us that it is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition. And this article isn't even about state terrorism, but about alleged state terrorism. That essentially means it's hypothesizing about a conjectural term, and it fails WP:NOR. Encyclopedias deal with facts, not allegations.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has now been expanded with many other sources covering a host of different incidents. Nick mallory 09:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not firmly opposed to such articles in principle - I voted to keep Allegations of state terrorism by the United States - but there needs to be substance in the article to justify what is otherwise a clear violation of Neutral point of view. Here all we have is an assertion that the term "state terrorism" was used by a journalist in connection with Russia.  That's not good enough. Shalom Hello 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to FrozenPurpleCube for asking me to reconsider my opinion. In light of the improvement to the article since my previous comment, my original rationale for deletion is not valid.  My current opinion is neutral. Shalom Hello 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia deals with "allegations" (and their cousin "controversies") all the time. There has been an enormous amount of discussion on the page Allegations of state terrorism by the United States which resulted in that particular title.  This new article is simply following that format (apparently an article called Allegations of Iranian state terrorism has been created as well, and the article Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka has existed for awhile).  These titles are far from ideal, but they were generally agreed upon by a number of editors heavily involved with the incredibly contentious US state terrorism article.  In any case, if we are going to have a state terrorism by the US article (and it seems we are) it certainly makes sense to have similar article for other nations, though this will no doubt continue to be a highly debated topic.  Certainly Russia (and the USSR) have been accused of committing state terrorism by what we would deem reliable sources, so there is a basis for an article along these lines. This article was just created, so it should at the very least be given some time to develop.  Those interested in commenting on this AfD should probably familiarize themselves with some of the discussion at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (including the most recent AfD) as it is quite pertinent to this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD is at Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination) in case anyone is interested. --Itub 09:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep " for reasons given by user above 3tmx 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are going to be articles about 'allegations of state terrorism' then so be it. Russia's record since 1991, never mind the Soviet period, is littered with such accusations, all of which can be well sourced.  If the article on the USA stays then so does this one. I have started to add sources for the 1999 apartment bombings, the Litvinenko poisoning, the Estonian cyber war, the Viktor Yushchenko poisoning in Ukraine and yesterday's missile drop on Georgia. Nick mallory 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps accusations of... would be a better title?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? If the article on the USA, Iran and Sri Lanka uses the word 'allegations' then why not here? Nick mallory 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe all of them should be called "accusations", then. Otherstuffexists is never a reason.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While there are many cases where that argument is misused, to say it's never a reason is an absolute that's not supported by my experience. There are cases where it is appropriate to note that an article with a similar premise exists. In this case, where the obvious intent is to cover acts by nation, I would think it quite reasonable to support the creation of articles for any country where sources describing terrorism allegations by that country exist.  Since I doubt you can argue that there aren't any allegations against Russia when several have already been sourced on the page, I would say that you can't fairly object to this page as a concept without also addressing a position on the others.  And if you wish to propose renaming the convention of the articles to accusations as opposed to allegations, that would be a different forum than AFD.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking at the history of this article, I see two edits to it. The page's creation, and the page's nomination for deletion.  This means we can't rely on the current page for anything, but must instead look elsewhere.  Let's see.  .  That's one.  Here's a speech on RadioFreeEurope.  .  Here's a CNN transcript.  .  That's three quick sources I could find on this subject.  Are they perfect?  No, but they convince me this is not just an isolated fancy, but rather something that can be appropriately developed given time.  If you have a problem with the title of the page, which would be something that'd impact a lot of other pages, I don't feel AFD is the right place, however, I do feel it's obvious that the concept of state terrorism as practiced by this country is something that has been given coverage in third-party sources.  To remove it would be censorship.  You are, of course, encouraged to make an effort to improve the page.  FrozenPurpleCube 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would especially suggest additions to coverage in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Though an argument could be made for putting them on their own page.  FrozenPurpleCube 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already suggested on the talk page of the article splitting it between the Soviet Union and post Soviet Russia. Russia is the successor state but the sheer amount of possible information means two pages would be better than one. Nick mallory 09:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, though I would also add Tsarist Russia to the mix. I'll go add my thoughts there.  FrozenPurpleCube 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although I see not much of value in the current content of the article, the topic is notable and encyclopedic and the article is very new. Give it time to expand. --Itub 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. I'm naturally resistant to articles surrounding "allegations", but the arguments above are valid; give the article time and see where it goes. OBM | blah blah blah 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep But many of the sections of the page just recently added would not actually be defined as "terrorism". Maybe acts of aggression, conflict, war, whatever. The sources or the sections themselves do not mention the concept of "state terrorism". Recurring dreams 12:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep great arguments per User:Bigtimepeace Taprobanus 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and give time to develop. Manticore's arguments are solid enough. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Per bigtimepiece. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The article is neutral in tone, deals in widely discussed subject matter of clear notoriety. This is a bad-faith nom working in a backhanded fashion towards the deletion of the Allegations...United States article.  It is as absurd as all the other attempts, and deserves a speedy trip to /dev/null.  Stone put to sky 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per bigtimepiece and FrozenPurpleCube Harlowraman 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Opinions do not equal facts. This article violates WP:SYNTH.--MONGO 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Bigtime and others. Mandsford 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH - You cant take a bunch of facts and tie them up to make a point.  Mention the sourced incidents in the appropriate articles, but not like this Corpx 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT.  --Tbeatty 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - the title is highly POV as is the article; I think of a situtation where it is alledged that "Dick" is a sexual pervert or "Jane" is a terrible mother. These are not grey areas, they either are or they are not and that is why I reject this article as well as others like it. They are the opinion of the accuser of what is and what is not terrorism. This is intellectual smut at its worst parading as valid journalism. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the article about a subject that is notable? Yes. [...]
 * Is the subject of the article or its content entirely or inherently original research? No.
 * Does the article contain non-neutral content? Yes.
 * Is the article inherently or irreparably POV? No.
 * Is the title of the article neutral? Irrelevant.[...] I would say that the current title is appropriate per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which states: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize ...". (shamelessly copied from User:Black Falcon’s rationale Taprobanus 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYNTH definitely and per nom strongly. I hate when people assume "adding sources" to an article always fixes everything. Bulldog123 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and give peoples a chance to work on it. Topic may have merits but currently article is a dump and schoolbook example of WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. Adding "energy" part to it is so hilarious it almost begs to add link to this article to Russophobia page. Russian attempt to use it's economic influence is considered State Terrorism. Gimme a break, what country does not use whatever economic influence it has? RJ CG 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, as per arguments by Bigtimepeace. Digwuren 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States wasn't deleted so why should this be any different. If the information is sourced and the allegations have merit the article should be kept.-- Southern Texas  20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, nom says encyclopedia deal in facts: notable opinions are facts, in that the opinion exists and is discussed. If we couldn't document opinion, then what about all the religion articles? This article is a useful documentation of historical statements. ... Seabhcan 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Southern Texas, I would delete both articles but lets be consistent Alex Bakharev 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Violates WP:SYNTH just as much as that other crap magnet Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:17, 10 August 2007 (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.