Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Koussar


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Project Koussar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - This article relies solely on a single, speculative piece in Jane's Defence Weekly that was published in 2006. No official government source is on record confirming the report. In 2009, there is only 2 English language references to "Project Koussar" in the whole of Google News. . Dynablaster (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Jane's Defence Weekly is probably the most respected defense magazine there is. Why did you limit your search to Google News only? There's a mention in this book: . Project Koussar/Kowsar is mentioned also in this CSIS presentation . Then there is the recent mention in the RIA Novosti article. As for the missile, it might be the same as Shahab-6, or it might not. If people don't want this article to exist, then a merge to Shahab-6 could also be possible. Offliner (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are stretching these few sources beyond breaking point. A single CSIS paper in 2 plus years, that says only: "Some sources claim that Iran has begun a new missile development project (project Koussar/Kowsar) to develop an IRBM". There is simply not enough information here to justify a page on Wikipedia. Dynablaster (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The subject is mentioned in four different high-class, reliable sources. It is however, a speculative and unconfirmed missile project. A merger to Shahab-6 could also be possible, since they might be same missile, although Jane's specifically mentions that it is different from the Shahab line of missiles. Offliner (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The only source that discussed "Project Koussar" at length was Jane's Defence Weekly -- just once, back in the year 2006. The rest appear to be brief, single sentence references to a project that doesn't actually exist. If Project Koussar were real, there would be lots of references by now in every major defense publication. This wiffs of the kind of speculation we saw before the invasion of Iraq. Dynablaster (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Added some more refs. Actually there seem to be quite many sources which mention Project Koussar/Kowsar, but some seem to think that it is simply another name for Shahab-6. In any case, Iran's IRBM/ICBM aspirations and alleged programs are discussed at length in multiple reliable sources, and for this reason the general subject is definitely notable and important enough for Wikipedia. However, it is unclear in which articles we should put the material in. Offliner (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most definitely not "Project Koussar" because this project name is not known to exist, and most of the sources you have produced on the main page only reference "Project Koussar" very briefly, in the context of what unnamed sources quote other sources as saying. It's a vicious circle of non-reporting and name-dropping. Dynablaster (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think I'd have to agree with Dynablaster on this one.  I only got one hit on Google News for Project Koussar -- there was a link to the BBC's website, but the article there didn't actually mention Project Koussar, it was just an article dealing with something Obama said to/about Iran.  I think this article has failed to assert its notability.  Matt (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, why are you limiting your search to Google News only? Does this mean that books and defense journals are not reliable sources at all, only news articles are? As far as I know, Google News hits is in no way a factor in determining notability. Coverage in reliable sources is. Did you check the refs used in the article? . Do you mean that the information about the alleged Iranian IRBM/ICBM project should not be present anywhere in Wikipedia, or just not in this article under this name? Offliner (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Information about an alleged Iranian IRBM/ICBM program might be notable -- editors with greater understand of the subject matter will know the answer to that -- but so far as Project Koussar goes, most references only repeat what other sources quote unnamed sources as saying. Project Koussar is no more than a footnote, and certainly not a Wikipedia page. Dynablaster (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep coverage at Middle East Times, IMRA, RIA Novosti, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jane's, in a book, scholarly article of Naval War College. It's notable. --Russavia Dialogue 00:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Dynablaster (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  —Dynablaster (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment Dynablaster and others may not be aware just exactly what/who Janes is? Imagine for a moment, this is Wikipedia during the height of the Cold War. Using the argument used above, did you know that articles on a large amount of Tupolev, MiG, Sukhoi, etc aircraft would not exist, because a lot of the early information on these aircraft, whilst the Soviet government didn't confirm (and sometimes denied) the existence of many of them, cames from Janes? Janes is a world-renounced authority on defence issues, and presents information similar to globalsecurity.org, fas.org, etc, just without all the ideological/political bullshit. Furthermore, as other outlets are commenting on the potential Iranian program, gives it notability for this project. And please remember one of the core policies of WP, that being WP:V, which clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The information in the article is verified, and is attributed correctly. And is notable. So there is no need to simply delete this, but expand it once more information becomes available. --Russavia Dialogue 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * None of that is relevant to reason I provided for nominating this article. Yes Project Koussar came to attention in Jane's Defence Weekly in 2006. Once. Then nothing. No reliable publication has advanced the story since that time. We have a handful of sources that mention the topic cautiously, using phrases like "according to" and "sources claim" etc. The whole thing is circular. Depth of coverage is poor. We should not be describing the story of Iran's IRBM/ICBM aspirations under the name of a project that A) is unlikely to exist and B) which only produces 32 unique hits in the whole of Google! Perhaps there is better way of getting at the bigger picture. But honestly, Project Koussar really is a footnote at best. Dynablaster (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've seen some major mistakes in Jane's flagship publications go uncorrected across multiple editions and some ideological articles pretending to be 'analysis' published in JDW, so it shouldn't be assumed that Jane's is flawless (case in point: each annual edition of Jane's Sentinel states that the Timor Leste Defence Force's naval unit hasn't yet been formed, but Jane's Fighting Ships states that it has two patrol boats and 150 sailors - both obviously aren't right, but they've never bothered to fix whichever very expensive reference book is wrong). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are multiple sources, not a single source.Biophys (talk) 23:32, 16 March 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.