Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novichok agent


 * 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. Sr13 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Novichok agent

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of convincing sources to even prove this exists, much less what it is/does Alvis 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There must be sources.  TonyWonderBread 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep So fix up the article with reliable sources. A google scholar search shows that the concept exists, and can be verified with sources Recurring dreams 05:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty in Google Books and Google News Archive as well. Basic Google is never enough with specialized topics. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job tracking down these new potential sources Recurring dreams&Dhartung, but looking over a handful, aren't many just repeating Mirzayanov's original account? Alvis 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's more than obvious that most of the info is pure speculation, including the sources. There simply is no (unclassified ?)hard evidence on even the existence of Novichok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lost Boy (talk • contribs) 10:52, 20 Jul 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it possible it's notable because of the speculation, like UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster? Morgan Wick 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents gives it a three-page treatment, if only as professional speculation, indicating that experts take its potential existence seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this stuff may or may not exist, but the amount of speculation makes the topic notable - compare red mercury. Totnesmartin 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and keep looking for more sources. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  05:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is famous binary chemical agent. There are numerous sources, I will try to include some of them.Biophys 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever you suspect it is, it' _not_ binary. Lost Boy 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lost Boy, while I appreciate your healthy sense of skepticism on both this and the article's talk page, you seem to imply that you have sound knowledge of this topic. Do you have any good sources to add to the article?  I'm stopped in my tracks trying to figure out what's a trustworthy source and what's not. Alvis 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply.The existence of Novichok agents has been openly admitted by Russian state authorities when they brought a criminal treason case against Mirzoyanov. According to expert witness testimonies of state prosecution, the agents did exist and therefore the disclosure by Mirzoyanov represents high treason. Mirzoyanov made his disclosure out of environmental concerns. He was a head of a counter-intelligence department and did measurements outside the CW facilities to make sure that foreign spies can not detect any traces of the production. To his horror, he found enormous amounts of CW that represented danger for people who lived there.Biophys 16:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. The books by Birshein and Albats (reliable secondary sources) claim this to be a binary weapon.Biophys 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See this source: "the talk [by Mirzayanov] about binary weapons was no more than a verbal construct, an argument ex adverso, and only the MCC could corroborate or refute this natural assumption. By entangling V. S. Mirzayanov in investigation, the MCC [Russian Military Chemical Complex] confirmed the stated hypothesis, advancing it to the ranks of proven facts." Biophys 19:43, 24 July 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.