Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Consensus seems to be that this is a POV fork. NW ( Talk ) 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * 1. This is a textbook example of a WP:POVFORK. The creator has forked material supporting the conspiracy theory from Russian apartment bombings and Theories of Russian apartment bombings, while at the same time conveniently dropping all criticism of the theory and all other points of view. Imagine if someone forked Evidence of US government involvement in the September 11 attacks from 9/11 conspiracy theories - that would be a similar case and would definitely get deleted.
 * 2. The article fails WP:SYNTH: it combines different events and different sources to advance a theory.
 * 3. This material is already present in other articles. The two articles Russian apartment bombings and Theories of Russian apartment bombings cover all this material in a much more neutral and balances way.


 * Ryazan incident is available at Russian apartment bombings
 * Explosives controversies is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings
 * Incident in Russian Parliament is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings
 * Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings
 * Obstruction of Kovalev commission is available at Russian_apartment_bombings
 * Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings

...et cetera, et cetera.

Since the material is already present at other articles, and since we already have a valid content fork of Russian apartment bombings (Theories of Russian apartment bombings) I see absolutely no need for this kind of POV article. Offliner (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, nothing had changed since the previous AfD discussion of this article (one could read it).Biophys (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The original article Russian apartment bombings is very big. So, it only makes sense to create a number of sub-articles per WP:MOS and briefly summarize the corresponding content in main article. I wanted to do just that but I could not, because nominator of this AfD reverted all my changes there. But that is what should be done. Note that we have the following sub-articles on this subject in ruwiki:
 * ru:Террористический акт в Буйнакске (1999)
 * ru:Террористический акт в Волгодонске
 * ru:Террористический акт на Каширском шоссе (1999)
 * ru:Террористический акт на улице Гурьянова.


 * We already have a perfectly valid subarticle: Theories of Russian apartment bombings. Why is that not enough? Can you please explain we need this article which (in addition to being a textbook example of WP:POVFORK) simply duplicates content from Theories of Russian apartment bombings? I can think of no other reason for the existence of this article other than to push a POV. Offliner (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of duplicated content in Theories of Russian apartment bombings should be removed or briefly summarized. Actually, I would nominate for deletion article Theories of Russian apartment bombings. But nominating articles for deletion is not the way of resolving content disputes.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you would delete the neutral article (which discusses all points of view), and keep the POV article (which discusses only a single point of view, and doesn't even mention any of the other POVs)? If you want to have a subarticle, then can you tell me what exactly is the advantage of having an inherently POV article titled "Evidence of..." instead of a balanced one? Are you sure you have read and understood WP:NPOV and especialy WP:POVFORK? Offliner (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of existing article are POVish form the point of view of individual editors (including Theories of Russian apartment bombings of course). This is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. When Biophys doesn't reach consensus with other editors, he starts spawning numerous fork articles like Operation Sarindar or adding fork content to already existing articles like Nuclear terrorism. Nuclear terrorism talk page alone deserves reading to learn about Biophys straightforward tactics. Common pattern of behaviour. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As per policy WP:MOS.--DragonFly31 (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per what in WP:MOS? Can you elaborate? Offliner (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV fork. The appropriate information will be preserved in the primary article so this should be non-controversial. Editors should be reminded that having an article about something in Wikipedia doesn't make it "true".  Drawn Some (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete covered in other articles, and an intrinsically POV title, inappropriate for a redirect.    DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs considerable work, obviously. It is very good at expounding on its subject without being PoV (where editors in this and the previous AfD contend that by expounding its subject, it is PoV), but the nominators and respondents are quite correct in stating that mentions of alternate views are completely lacking. Lacking a perspective can itself be described as PoV, but for the sake of the distinction, I hope you will agree that there is no other sort of PoV in it. As usual for AfD, the nomination overreaches the mandate of WP:DELETION by suggesting that content is grounds for deletion. As usual, this is a matter for the talk page. Note that there are only three entries in talk, all by the same person. That AfDs are commonly used in lieu of discussion and improvement is all the more reason to oppose such attempts.
 * It is 'Theories' that is PoV, and insidiously so, with a sentence-as-paragraph at the beginning: "A number of conspiracy theories question the official account on the Russian apartment bombings" This also applies to any article with 'conspiracy theory' in the title. Articles should present the evidence, not frame it. I am not saying it is easy to find a NPOV title for POV information, but there has to be an alternative that introduces readers to the subject, without telling them what the facts constitute. Anarchangel (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and DGG. This is a classic WP:POVFORK created by User:Biophys to use Wikipedia as a tool for advocacy and promotion of his own POV. As the article is available in its entireity in other articles where it is possible to be covered in an NPOV way. --Russavia Dialogue 11:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please abide by WP:AGF. --Martintg (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Biophys and per previous AfD "keep" rational by myself and others, here, here and here. In other words, it is a reasonable sub-article split from an overly long main article, per WP:MOS. If there are POV issues, this can be rectified in this sub-article. --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read what I said in my nomination? There is already a valid subarticle (Theories of Russian apartment bombings). Please tell me why that one is not enough. The POV issues in this article can be fixed by redirecting this page to Theories of Russian apartment bombings where all of this material is already present and where it is discussed in a neutral way, under a neutral title. Offliner (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Theories of Russian apartment bombings appears to be a POVFORK of this article, since that article discusses a number of "conspiracy theories" whereas this article merely presents evidence of FSB involvement without taking a POV on "conspiracy theories". --Martintg (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your only concern seems to be the title of Theories of Russian apartment bombings, so I moved it to Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings. Happy now? Offliner (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - an article purporting to give "evidence" for a controversial conspiracy theory seems like a darn clear case of blatant violation of WP:POV fork (we are not supposed to have such articles on Wiki). Any chance we'll have something like Evidence of CIA involvement in the World Trade Center attacks? PasswordUsername (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And how about deleting Evidence of evolution? If we had a lot of sourced, reliable and widely accepted evidence about CIA involvement in the World Trade Center attacks, that would be a legitimate article. But we do have a lot of such evidence about FSB involvement, as described in multiple reliable sources, and as admitted by many main-stream historians and politicians in Russia and US.Biophys (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evolution is a scientific theory accepted by most scientists. Sorry, you have no case. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (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.