Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimes involving radioactive substances


 * 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 consensus is that this should be kept, especially as improvements are taking place  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Crimes involving radioactive substances

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article has always been a very troubling bit of original synthesis. It was originally titled nuclear crime; the original author(s) had abstracted a novel category of crime out of very different events (not necessarily all technically crimes). I moved it to what I thought was a better title, based on the looser criteria for lists as opposed to articles. But now someone has moved it away from the "list" title on the grounds that it is not a list, which is arguably true. In that case it has to go because it's not justifiable as an article, and it's a libel trap. Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a very interesting article subject. I think it should be rewritten as a list, the original research removed, and careful attention paid to phrasing, e.g., lots of "alleged" or "suggested." I would be interested in contributing to the rewrite. Catavar (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be a plausible solution if done rigorously. I am still somewhat concerned about the original-synthesis element, even in a list.  Are there any reliable sources that categorize these events together on the basis of similar criteria? --Trovatore (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I should say that WP:SYNTH doesn't say exactly what I was thinking &mdash; I'm not saying that the article necessarily "advances a position" via a novel synthesis (though I'm also not saying it doesn't; it's a point that needs to be watched out for if Catavar's plan is followed). The point is more that it considers together things that I am not sure are considered together in reliable sources; that it's a novel invention of a topic of study or discussion.  --Trovatore (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit - The overall topic is clearly notable, and the article at this time would be better-presented in list format. This article has significant potential to act as a navigation guide for topics (per the article's premise) that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Are they considered together as a category in reliable sources?  That's what bugs me about this sort of article.  We should not be inventing novel topics of study at Wikipedia.  --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and revise -- Yes, there are problems with the article as it stands, but this is a notable topic which is supported by several reliable sources, including the Johnston Archive, Criminal acts causing radiation casualties. Johnston is considered an expert in the radiation field and this is really an excellent data source upon which to revise and improve the article. Johnfos (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be a reasonable start for a revised article. But then stuff like Klaus Fuchs needs to be removed; Fuchs never caused any "radiation casualties", at least not directly.  Also the name needs to change.  --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete While an interesting collection of reports I think WP:SYNTH and WP:OR say not to create articles based on an intersection such as "crime" and "radioactivity." I don't think we would have an article on "Crimes involving gasoline."  Also the article, to me anyway, seems to have a WP:SOAPBOX feel. As if its purpose is to warn us of the dangers of criminals getting hold of radioactive substances.  A worthy purpose, but not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be doing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said "The threat of criminal or unauthorized acts involving nuclear and other radioactive material has grown significantly since the early 1990s. It is well known that terrorist groups have sought to acquire such material", see Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and other Radioactive Material. This source and the Johnston Archive, Criminal acts causing radiation casualties are excellent data sources which establish notability and which could be used to revise and improve the article. Johnfos (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response an article based on that source would have a very different scope from the existing one. For example it would not include the Goiânia accident or Klaus Fuchs. --Trovatore (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this article runs afoul of original synthesis, since I do not see a clear conclusion... or really any conclusion. It's a glorified list, one that draws no conclusion.  The weasel words in the article I think, assuming good faith, are an attempt to keep a NPOV, Roodog2k (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's true that I had misremembered what WP:SYNTH says. You're right, there's no clear conclusion the article seems to be advancing.  Nevertheless it seems to be somewhat of a novel topic of study, which WP also should not be discovering; it's not within our function.  As for it being a "glorified list", the trigger for my filing this AfD was when someone moved it from a title containing list on the grounds that it was not one.  If it were rewritten as a true list, that would alleviate some of my concerns to some extent, but not the one about it being a libel trap. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not feel this is a novel topic of study. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) defense concerns by the US DoD (military personnel) and DHS (civilians), state and local gov'ts are well documented, as a simple Google search will show.  This scope is not unique to the United States.  Companies, such as Bruhn Newtech in Eurpoe, produce software for civil defense worldwide to protect against these threats.  I called it a glorified list, because it is something more than a list, but less than an article, since there needs to be more of a narrative in the typical way articles are written.  In that sense, the article is lacking, but just because an article needs improvement, it shouldn't be deleted.  As for it being a libel trap, I would be fine with renaming the article; I'm not sure the name does the content justice anyway.  And, if it does get converted into a true list, then the article should still exist, since the scope of the list would be rather small, say, compared to a list of as crimes committed with handguns, which would be unmaintanable and essentially unlimited. Roodog2k (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope could probably be narrowed, in one direction or another, so as to make it not novel, but with its current scope, I stand by my position that it is novel. Combining the Litvinenko murder, the accident at Goiânia, and the transmission of atomic bomb designs to the Soviets?  Show me a reliable source where these three things are considered in a common category. --Trovatore (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can, but that's not a criterion of deletion, although it is close. Plus, a bold editor could improve the article to keep things more in line.  Like I said before, I don't like the title. Now, I will not attempt to open anything close to a set theory discussion with you regarding inclusion, since you've got the juice to trounce me. Roodog2k (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, technically, AfD is about titles. Possibly I should have filed an AfD against it as a neologism, when it was called nuclear crime.
 * In any case, the question is not should this content be included somewhere?, but rather should there be an article on the organizing principle of the current one?. I think there should not be, because it combines things that are too disparate.  The content can be spread out over more coherent articles, say one for things like Goiânia, one for things like Litvinenko, and one for espionage relating to nuclear/radiological technology. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nuclear Crime" is not a neologism, since it is a term that is used in the mass-media, as a google search will demonstrate. Interpol has a page that describe efforts against these crimes, albeit wrt terrorism.  A google book search turns up "nuclear crimes" sources as well, going back to the 1980s by the RAND corporation. google book search.  Like I said, some of the content of the article I'm not fond of and I think it should be removed, but I think it's valid to say that 'crimes involving radioactive substances' isn't too broad taken by itself, or something else with similar wording. Roodog2k (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to be very careful with this sort of search. Of course "nuclear crime" will turn up a lot of Google hits, but most of them are likely to be simply adjective-plus-noun used according to standard English-language construction.  That's different from anyone attempting to isolate category of "nuclear crime".  And I don't think there is a recognized criminological category of crimes involving radioactive substances (in very disparate ways). --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, your link is not about "crimes involving radioactive substances". It's about "Terrorism that makes use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNe) materials".  I would not object to an article on that.  But that would not be this article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read any of the references in the google book search? It pretty clearly supports the fact that "nuclear crime" is not a neologism.  Also, I was pretty clear that the link was about terrorism.  My only point is that this is clearly not a novel topic, and is, in fact, a subtopic to CBRN defense. Roodog2k (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did look at some of them, and no, I did not see any that unambiguously supports the claim. There were some that were perhaps suggestive, but I do not recall a single one that clearly indicated that "nuclear crime" had been singled out as a named category, as opposed to being used as a natural construction of the language.  The topic of this article does not appear to be "a subtopic of CBRN defense": the Goiânia accident is not about defense at all, but about care with hazardous materials, and the atomic spies issue was about defending against espionage rather than against CBRN materials directly. --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Release Other Than Attack (ROTA) is considered within the scope of CBRN defense, something a google search will show, something that could either be criminal or non-criminal. Also, espionage wrt 'Nuclear Crime' in google books also is covered. Roodog2k (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For "nuclear crime" not to be a neologism, you would need two things: First of all, it would need to have a meaning different from (probably more specific than) simply "nuclear" plus "crime" in English, and second and most important, these parameters for "nuclear crime" would have to be (within some wiggle room), generally agreed among those who study the subject.  If the first fails, then you're just taking an intersection.  If the second fails, then you're originally abstracting a notion from authors who used the same language, but may not have intended to study the same notion.  Can you point me to which Google Books results support the first and second points, if you think they do? --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's back this discussion up a bit, although I disagree with you whether "nuclear crime" is a neologism... that discussion is becoming moot: You proposed to delete this article based on one criterion: WP:SYNTH. They way the article stands, even by your admission, this does not violate WP:SYNTH, since there is no conclusion drawn by the article, nor inferred by the title.  Neologisms can be removed from articles, and articles titles can be changed, anyway. But, I still say it's not a neologism. "Mainstream" book on Amazon, and a 1982 RAND Corporation Report. And somepower point hell from DHS: DHS PP Presentation. What may be a neologism to you isn't really one to those that work supporting CBRN defense, such as myself.  Within the scope of the article, it's a reasonable term to use. Roodog2k (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That specific criterion I misinterpreted somewhat, yes. Nevertheless Wikipedia is not supposed to create novel areas of study.  This is within the general idea of WP:OR, whether or not there's a specific passage about it.  Also there is still my separate concern that the article is a libel trap, especially if the word "crime" remains anywhere in the title. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've demonstrated that this is by no means a novel field of study, as the RAND Coporation was studying this in 1982. Also, I'm not sure about the libel trap. Provided that facts are supported by reliable rreferences, what's the problem? Otherwise, by your logic, all bios of living people would be libel traps and should therefore be deleted.  I do see other issues that may occur with this article in the future, such as someone adding the atomic bombings of Japan to the list of crimes, but that is not a criterion for deletion... that someone may add something controvertial in the future.  Any of the issues you describe with the article could be solved by a bold editor or editors. Roodog2k (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? What RAND was studying in 1982 would have included cases like Goiânia, cases like Litvinenko, and cases like Klaus Fuchs, all in the same study?  Frankly that strikes me as unlikely.  The novelty is not in what is studied, but in the organizing criterion for studying them as a single subject.  I highly doubt that there's a precedent for that, at least one that would meet notability requirements; if there is, then please point me to it (I gather that you are in a position to do so if anyone is). --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're defining a new criterion. You're basically saying that in order for an article to have merit for inclusion, there must be a third-party source that must cover the topic in its entirety.  If you're concerned with a few subsections of the article, rather than the article as a whole, be bold and remove the parts with which you disagree, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  A discussion about what belongs in the article is a very different discussion than whether the article should exist at all. Roodog2k (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is, what is "the" article? I do not think there should be an article based on the defining principle that this article has always had.  To me, that means the article would no longer exist.  There could plausibly be an article on, say, events where intentional or negligent release of radioactive materials caused injuries, and that would keep Goiânia and Litvinenko but lose Fuchs.  But that would not be this article; it would be a different one, even if it had much of the same material. --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is sufficiently coherent, and there is enough material. an encyclopedia does not create gields of study, but it does organize material.  DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but then you have to argue that it's a good novel organization of material. Why is it a good one?  I don't think it is. --Trovatore (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no, a WP article does not have to be of good quality to be kept. Improving articles is done by normal editing.  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true, but that's not my point. The question is not whether the article as it stands is good.  The question is whether it's a good criterion for defining a topic for an article.  If it's not, then how well such a criterion is implemented is beside the point. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I do believe this would be better renamed to "List of --." The alleged crimes named in here themselves are notable. I'm fact some of them may be notable for their own articles, so they could be moved to separate articles, and linked from this page. Stedrick (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Johnfors and WP:HEY - it's getting better and is clearly notable, based on a cursory look at the sources. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2012 (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.