Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAL 007: The Naval Search


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

KAL 007: The Naval Search

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article is a content fork of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, with the apparent motivation being to flesh out details of a particular conspiracy theory advanced by rescue007.org  Note that there is already a separate article entitled Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories  Socrates2008  ( Talk ) 11:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article's sole author is the chief advocate for this conspiracy theory organization and this poorly-written and unnecessary article is heavily skewed towards advocacy of this theory. Furthermore the author has used this article as spam, for example trying to include it as a "See also" entry in History of the United States Navy and a similar attempt in Naval history (both since reverted).  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I also reverted the 'See Also' entries made by this article's author into somewhere between six to ten other articles. Most of which were on naval ships.William 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, for the time being I've renamed it to Naval search for KAL 007 because the original name sounds like a novel. If anyone can think of a better name please feel free.   Will Beback    talk    12:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a good move, because that's exactly what I thought the article was about at first.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here; thanks for moving it.  wacky wace  14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Korean Air Lines Flight 007. A sizable portion of this article is quotes and photo images that are either not form a WP:NPOV or otherwsie offer little encyclopedic value to the topic; removing most of the quotes then summarizing the information and it could fit nicely into the main article on KAL Flight 007. -- Aeonx (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Extensive effort has gone into copyediting the main KAL 007 article, and to ensure that the weighting of its content is appropriate. Merging this article into that section would regress that article by re-introducing the very problems that people have been working so hard at resolving - in short the article would lose its GA status.  Secondly, length is an issue with the primary article - it's already over 100K.  Lastly, for people that are not familiar with this subject, the author of this article has a history of making POV edits around this topic, to the extend that some people are thinking about a topic ban.  The size of this block of text here should not be grounds for keeping or merging - we've seen it before in the main article, where it was copyedited out.  Socrates2008  ( Talk ) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, last observation is that the quotes refered to above would be better placed at WikiQuote if they are that noteworthy.  Socrates2008  ( Talk ) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. As Wasted Time R and Socrates2008 pointed out, the author of the article has a strong POV issue with the subject of the article, and also has COI issues, not to mention the entire article is, essentially, based on a fringe conspiracy theory for which there isn't a single piece of reliable evidence. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:FRINGE. I wouldn't rule out WP:SYN issues either. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not Delete: The article does need to be written better. The article does try to provide in more detail what is provided in a section of the KAL 007 article. That the article appears to support the theory that the author holds is true but that is not because the article is skewed but because that is where the evidence lies. Others are free to provide other evidence or amend what I have written. Aside from this, the author merely presents that evidence rather than drawing conclusion concerning survival. The article is well referenced, and the anomalies crying for a solution have been noted by others. The photos, by and large, are very relevant as they are the real time photos of particular vessels concerned. There should be no problem with my association with the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors. It is the material itself we must deal with. I think it true that everyone of us has personal motivation as to why he is involved with Wikipedia in the first place, why he chooses to edit one type of articles rather than other, why he may choose a particular topic or topic for which he dedicates himselfBert Schlossberg (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There's already extensive coverage of this topic in the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article and this does seem to be advancing a particular theory. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete - you can tell a lot of work went into this article but in keeping with 9/11 and other major events. Should only have one article about the mainstream theory. And one article about alternate theories. This article need to be folded into one of them and my guess is it should be the latter one. Perhaps if the quotes could be removed and just the mechanics of the search described, this could be a child article of the main theory article. --MarsRover (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Korean Air Lines Flight 007. My first thought was to merge the articles, but Socrates2008 points out that the weight issue is already heavy towards the recovery. As it stands, the article is heavily redundant to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories (especially with the excessive quotes), but I would not redirect there because the article seems to focus more on the Cold War tension between the Soviet and American navies than outright conspiracy theories. That said, I don't think the near-confrontations merit an article independant of the main one. A little bit of careful merge work can raconcile this to the main KAL007 article without sacrificing the GA status.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete content and redirect to Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The material here which goes beyond that which is present at the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article is not worthy of a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I prefer a non-delete, I agree with Bahamut0013 that material can be added to the main article without that loosing GA statusBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge significant material such as the search confrontations timeline (USSR list also, if available) into the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 article. The size of the existing article is not a reason to not provide significant additional information.  Relevant pictures and charts should be preserved.  SBaker43 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2010 (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.