Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy (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 is clear that the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best. Shereth 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Russia and Saddam WMD allegations Articles for deletion/Operation Sarindar 


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


 * Delete A poorly named, thinly sourced conspiracy theory in which the same two original sources are stretched beyond breaking point. The page is strung-out with peculiar subheadings, carrying statements from people with no direct knowledge of the alleged plot, but whom speculate on it, and/or flatly dismiss it. What is more, this article is well within the scope of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Indeed, exactly the same charges are described there, and the latter page is better formatted, well written and immaculately sourced. The same cannot be said of Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy. Nor has there been a concerted effort to correct the many problems with said page, despite expressed concerns on the talk page, and today, with the other page a better example of the same controversy, there seems to be no point. In addition, this page is orphaned whereas the other one is not.   ~ smb 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. ) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News ); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. This, "Operation Sarindar", is the basis for the whole page. ~ smb 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to back this observation up, I've just checked Factiva, a subscription news service operated by Dow Jones which contains most news media of the last 10-15 years, and there are no mentions there either. Orderinchaos 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a well publicized theory, it doesn't have to be true as long as it has been extensively covered by reliable sources, and it has. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a considered answer. Editors are not required to judge whether the conspiracy is true or not. Please read and consider the points raised above in favour of deleting said page. ~ smb 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not done any such thing; it is true it does not matter if its true or not, that is exactly my point; as long as it has reliable sources discussing it, and it does, it should have an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And my point is that it already has an article. The rest is incoherent. ~ smb 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War giving undue weight to one particular theory. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very unusual argument for an AfD. WP:UNDUE problems can only exist within one article. If one thinks this article does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" (the definition of UNDUE), this should be fixed by adding missing views.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain your reasoning. As this is not a vote, if you don't provide a reason for your opinion, it will probably be discounted.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge with "WDM teories...", per wp:undue victor   falk  21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is simply a sub-article of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War; not a content fork. Texts in the articles are different if to compare. This is third AfD nomination. Nothing changed since two previous AfD discussions. The article is well sourced. Nomination for deletion is not the way to discuss mergers.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing merger, but deletion, because everything of value is already described on the other page. This one is superfluous to requirements, serving no useful purpose. ~ smb 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what's in the article, it should be a redirect to preserve the history, the sources are useful ¨¨ victor   falk  19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources in WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War are exactly the same. Plus, they are active, whereas the same ones in Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy are dead, and have been for several months. ~ smb 19:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I created this article to remove the highly controversial story from GRU article. Do you suggest to place it back? I do not think so. It should be kept separately.Biophys (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Conspiracy theory with no reliable sources.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete it sucks --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it's notable - PietervHuis (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is why Wikipedia has a page that covers this topic. However, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. ) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News ); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. Not that you really care. ~ smb 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notable... anti-Russian propaganda -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then is should be marked as notable "anti-Russian propaganda" and kept.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * but wiki is not a soapbox for propaganda -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but WP has many articles about propaganda. However, none of the sources identifies the subject of this article as "propaganda". Hence it is not, and your comment is unfounded.Biophys (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Operation Sarindar" is not notable. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the only person who says "Sarindar" existed. ~ smb 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Present version of this article is not entirely about "Operation Sarindar". You said above the subject is notable. Please be consistent.Biophys (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusations that Saddam transferred WMD out of Iraq (with or without Russian help) are notable, but Pacepa's individual claim (re "Operation Sarindar") is not notable, and should not have special emphasis. The page is unwarranted. ~ smb 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYN. --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, if not necessarily accurate, theory that has been published in relatively reliable sources (Financial Times, Washington Times, Washington Post). Biruitorul Talk 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither the Financial Times nor the Washington Post has ever published a word about "Operation Sarindar". Everything else is accurately sourced on this page. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ smb 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, they have published a lot about this controversy. You are mistaken. This article is not about "Operation Sarindar" but about "Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy" - see the title.Biophys (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are in error (once again). Let me be clear, so there can be no possible misunderstanding. As noted above, allegations that Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq are notable, but Pacepa's uncorroborated claim ("Operation Sarindar") is not notable, and should not be given special emphasis on any page. And yet, the first heading on Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy is given over to describing the operating procedure for "Operation Sarindar", something neither the Financial Times nor the Washington Post nor any other reliable source has ever published a word about. In light of this fact, coupled with WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, you must concede that this page is redundant. But don't let small things like facts or Wikipedia policy stand in the way of your POV pushing, will you. ~ smb 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked. It's not in either the Washington Post or Financial Review, but in the Washington Times, a right-wing newspaper owned by people with links to Reverend Sun Myung Moon, on 21 August 2003 and 6 February 2004. The first is written by Ion Pacepa, identified as "the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc" and is full of random speculation and assertions. e.g. "Mr Putin likes to take shots at America... Mr Putin's tactics have worked." etc. The second is barely a mention at the end of a generally unrelated article, internally refuted by weapons inspector David Kay in a single line referring only to "that report". Another article is published in three different Wall Street Journal editions (US, Europe, Asia) on 30 September 2003, again relying very heavily on Pacepa. It's noted elsewhere that he is now a paid commentator for National Review, which seems to be another right-wing publication. On 27 March 2008, it got a *very* brief mention, linked to Shaw, in the "Prospect Magazine", buried deep within a 3990 word article. This is all reminding me of some issues we had with Australian blogs and Andrew Bolt and the like. A few self-publishing efforts by someone trying to sell a book that happen to make the media and a couple of lines here and there in other articles do not make anything notable. Orderinchaos 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW here's the evidence regarding it not being in the Washington Post. I have verified that Factiva's collection goes to the 1980s. Orderinchaos 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No results. Search Preview
 * Free Text	sarindar
 * Date 	All Dates
 * Source 	The Washington Post - Print and Online Or Washington Post (Abstracts) Or The Washington Post Or Washington Post.com Or Australian Financial Review (Abstracts) Or Financial Review Smart Investor (Abstracts) Or The Financial Review
 * Company 	All Companies
 * Subject 	All Subjects
 * Industry 	All Industries
 * Region 	All Regions
 * Language 	English

(8 matches for "pacepa" in Washington Post, but 6 of them are before 1993 and none of the two more recent - 22 Sep 2002 and 28 Aug 2004 - mention this conspiracy.)


 * I just want to record here that I'm generally surprised at Biophys's effort to censor my contribution of actual evidence to counter the points raised above. I've had a good opinion of him from previous situations, although we disagree on the facts in this case. Orderinchaos 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Biophys and past consensus. Ostap 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no serious evidence exists for any of the contentions made, and not a particularly notable theory - it's strung together here with WP:SYN, and I also agree with with smb's nom, and and Dhartung's WP:UNDUE concerns above. Addressing it purely on a factual basis, several reports from a number of government investigative agencies (including in the US) have suggested the weapons either did not exist/were not developed, which instantly voids the question of who hid them. Orderinchaos 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as this page is entirely devoted to a non-notable bullshit conspiracy theory. Now, some bullshit conspiracy theories are notable, became a subject of serious research and were covered by scholarly sources, for example The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The subject of this article, however, has not. It is entirely based on rumors and unsubstantiated allegations which does not make the subject notable enough for a separate page per se just because such allegations were published here and there. The latter may warrant a referenced statement in wider topic articles but this being spun off into a separate page creates the classic POV fork. Unfortunately, such and similar AfD's get often bombed, snowballed and voted along the traditional ethnic and "party" lines. So, I don't have much faith in the process. But if anyone is interested, here is my opinion. --Irpen 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right Irpen, this AFD is getting bombed, snowballed and voted along the traditional ethnic and "party" lines. What a shame. Ostap 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Orderinchaos and Irpen. A classic case of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE and a few other acronyms that come to mind, but I am too polite to write. Is glad that she will not be penalised for wanting to delete this...ummm...article. Risker (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable conspiracy stuff has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete See Orderinchaos and Irpen. Artifically created "controversy" through original synthesis. Not-notable, POV fork and thinly-sourced conspiracy theory that deserves no more than the brief mention (less, in fact) that it already has in the WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War article.--Berkunt (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Crack-pot conspiracy theory that simply cannot be taken seriously even for a conspiracy theory. Perfect example of how NOT to write an article per WP:SYN. Krawndawg (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely Delete. I see only vague speculations. Someone believes, someone clames, someone thinks, etc. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I wonder how can one consider not notable a controversy that involves two US Undersecretaries of State (John A. Shaw and Lawrence Di Rita), a former director of Russian Foreign Intelligence Yevgeny Primakov, and referenced to opinions of many notable people, such as Yossef Bodansky, Ion Mihai Pacepa and Thomas McInerney. Deletion of this material would be completely against WP policies.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple answer What a respected person like Albert Einstein thought about his collegues, football, whatever, seems to be uninteresting for the Encyclopedia. Normal article should present at least one fact. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple reply. But it would be interesting to learn what Albert Einstein thought about theory of relativity. All these experts (Shaw, Di Rita, Bodansky, Pacepa, and so on) made comments within their area of expertise. We do not cite what they think about theory of relativity or football.Biophys (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To summarize, we have a lot of Russian users who want this page to be deleted because it describes a controversy about Russia. On the other hand, this story was also an embarrassment for the Bush administration. So, some US users do not like it too. But the articles should not be deleted based on the majority of votes.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "But the articles should not be deleted based on the majority of votes.". Articles are deleted based on a majority of votes, not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. From Articles for deletion page - Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus --Berkunt (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)--Berkunt (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. "These processes are not decided through a head count" - see WP:DEL.Biophys (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The notorious anti-Russia propaganda pusher wants to keep his anti-Russian propaganda and accuses us all of being crybaby nationalists (instead of actually making a real argument against our on-topic comments) then suggests that we shouldn't follow consensus. Seriously?Krawndawg (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see The Plague. I like this essay.Biophys (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Krawndawg, please review WP:CIV. Biophys is a Russian, albeit one who is (quite rightly) disenchanted with that country's current regime and its dismal human rights record. It's not about propaganda, but about exposing, through reliable sources, the criminal conduct of the Kremlin. Biruitorul Talk 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were about "exposing" criminal conduct, the article would be properly sourced and wouldn't be a giant collection of original synthesis. But it's not and it is, that's what makes it propaganda. As for Biophys ethnicity, what on earth makes you think I care about that? Are you implying that one can't be against the country they were unwillingly born in? Lets keep irrelevant personal details out of this please. Krawndawg (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All we have is a puff piece written in a right-wing American newspaper by a defector, who now works for another right-wing American newspaper, which makes sweeping assertions. (I would have the same ground of opposition if it were opinion matter in Pravda or the Australian Communist Party's newspaper - which strangely does appear in journal repositories). It's not even remotely in the territory of reliable source, and false claims that it has appeared in reliable sources have been debunked. The whole thing is somewhat reminiscent for me of this controversy. Orderinchaos 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at ~15 sources in the article. All of them satisfy WP:Reliability. Once again, this is a notable controversy because it involves two US undersecretaries of State (John A. Shaw and Lawrence Di Rita), a former director of Russian Foreign Intelligence Yevgeny Primakov. Biophys (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Shaw is the only one of those you listed who pushes this conspiracy theory while the other two do not. No, this is definately not notable, as proven by the non-existant media coverage of it, as Orderinchaos proved, whose research delved deep and still found nothing. As Commander Sloat noted, there is no mainstream news coverage of such "controversy".--Berkunt (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Poorly sourced and thinly evidenced conspiracy theorists quoted out of context to build a synthesis argument, and all this seems to be done to forward a particular political POV that is completely at odds with what the consensus of journalists, government investigators, intelligence agencies, and academics has concluded after extensive investigation. csloat (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to add that I don't think improving the page will help at all here. There is no encyclopedically notable "Russian and WMD in Iraq controversy."  There is no mainstream news coverage of any such "controversy."  A google search for the title of this article results in ten total hits; nine look like links back to wikipedia and the tenth is something called "Techniques To Make Women Orgasm - H0gr2zcs | Google Groups."  I know of no academic article or newspaper article that refers specifically to this phrase at all. csloat (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is "Russia and WMD", not "Russian and WMD". Few exact matches for a title may indicate a long title, not lack of notability for the subject.Biophys (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The search was for "Russia" not "Russian." Please excuse my typo, but I spelled it correctly in the google search. csloat (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (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.