Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Smith (espionage)


 * 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. Considerable improvement and sourcing since it was nominated. JodyBtalk 00:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael John Smith (espionage)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BLP on lots of levels.
 * Poorly sourced with no remediation over the 9 years of the article's existence. No inline citations to support any of the (potentially contentious) statements made. All but two of the references cited are links to documents submitted by the article's subject to the leak site cryptome and can't be verified or validated.


 * Not notable - can't find any news coverage of this gentleman or the incident; the one cited reference to a Time magazine article doesn't mention the subject at all, just the spy he allegedly leaked info to


 * Appears to have been written mainly as a way to clear the name of the subject who was convicted for crimes in 1992. A major contributor to the article was User:Parellic who in his own userpage outs himself as the subject of the article Little Professor (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (gas)  @ 20:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Current article is problematic from a BLP perspective; as noted, only the Time source is reliable, and it does not serve to confirm any of the BLP-relevant details of the article as it stands. That aside, I can't find any significant coverage. He's mentioned in reliable sources, but solely in context with Viktor Oshchenko (who probably is notable, despite the redlink). There's nothing substantive to support an article on Smith. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being problematic from a sources perspective doesn't mean that the subject of the article is not notable. A little WP:GOOGLETESTing quickly threw up relevant sources.  For instance, the episode is mentioned in Christopher Andrew's "The Sword and the Shield", possibly as close as we will ever get to a definitive study of the subejct of Cold War spying.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodness Gracious - I agree with Little Professor - on the face of it User:Parellic may well be Michael John Smith himself. Most of the article actually can be sourced to "The Sword and the Shield" (I'm still looking for more sources) so I don't think there's much original research here but there may TOTALLY be a WP:COI.  How utterly bizarre - you meet all sorts on Wikipedia, but not many convicted Soviet spies! (We may get to start a new category: Category:Wikipedians who spied for the Soviet Union!) Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite the smell of fish. Subject is of interest to Cold War historians. Pax 07:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article and added inline citations, where they are available, and templates for the statements I couldn't source from secondary sources.  Please take a fresh look. I'm more convinced than ever that User:Parellic is Michael John Smith or someone close to him, so the closing remedy here may be a COI template. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's in doubt - the blog that he cites is http://parellic.blogspot.co.uk/ "Blog of Michael John Smith. I am seeking the truth behind the conspiracy that led to my conviction under the UK Official Secrets Act. E-mail me at parellic@googlemail.com" Little Professor (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to one source, Parellic was Michael John Smith's codename at Mi5; according to "Defence of the Realm", BORG was his codename at the KGB. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources added to the article since this was first nominated satisfy GNG. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the cite for the Parellic codename - Nigel West's 2007 "Historical Dictionary of Cold War Counterintelligence", p. 314. At this point I've gone through every material statement in the article and either sourced it to independent sources or  tagged it. A few of those s, e.g. "Smith alleges...", may well be primary research (i.e. directly from User:Parellic himself) but most are either uncontroversial (e.g. how many A-levels) or things for which other people may be able to find independent sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2015 (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.