Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Technology Center in Ukraine


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Science and Technology Center in Ukraine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sehmeet singh (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No rationale offered, but the page text is essentially a WP:COPYVIO from . AllyD (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep This is an intergovernmental agency which has international recognition and also has been active at the United Nations and will be taking part in the upcoming Conference on Disarmament as an observer (current affairs). This article should be re-written and elaborated upon. Both Canada and the United States have allocated funds for their programs. This should not have even come close to being submitted for deletion. In fact a treaty was signed in the creation of this organization in July 1997 between Canada, EU, the Ukraine and the US. DeusImperator (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have re-written a little of the article which should prevent its deletion. A simple search done on the internet would have easily established the worthiness of maintaining this article (but via a re-write). I have left out the cites but anyone can just help me out with them. It should not be hard as there is a multilateral treaty signed for this organization. . DeusImperator (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete, move to user space until sources found - Changing !vote to Keep: some sources have been located and added to the article, and they meet the notability requirement. This is a rather new article, and the authors (two editors) did an okay job, but they've neglected to provide sources, which are required per the WP:Verifiability policy. I've posted some information about sourcing and citations on the Talk page of one of the authors (user DeusImperator, who !voted Keep above) and I'm sure he'll look into finding sources.  Until sources are located and used, the article should be moved into DeusImperator's  user space.  It can be brought back here when ready.  --Noleander (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A simple query on the internet will provide all the necessary details regarding the organization. Also, the treaties involved with the creation of the organization. My re-write was mainly just to save the article and show its importance as the organization is a) notable, b) important organization with standing and status within the UN c) a construct of international treaties. However, if editors want to delete the article go ahead, do so but keep in mind that there are several FAR less articles about hogwash on the Wiki not deleted due to the lack of cites for which are far less notable not to mention have no internationally recognized standing that is not cited. The Wiki is supposed to be a collaboration, well collaborate. I merely argue that due to the nature of the organization, and readily available information it should stay regardless whether or not it was cited (which I have chosen not to do - for this reason and that was to generate this very same discussion).
 * A) Those wanting to delete an article should check with tools generally available to all persons (not some esoteric manual of experts)if it is notable or verifiable. They should show that it it is first, not notable and not verifiable by this means.
 * B) If it is notable and verifiable independently, then the article should be saved, and any deletion tag should be removed. Whether or not it is cited does not matter and should not as long as there is evidence at present that there is material that can be cited. A tag stating that the article should be cited should be placed instead of the request for deletion.
 * C) Those attempting to delete or argue that an article should be deleted should make the argument in good faith and should have checked the validity of the article before requesting a delete or supporting a deletion. Further to this, I am NOT the primary author of this article but Ю́рій Перога́нич (Yuri Perohanych). DeusImperator (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comments Those requesting a delete should provide an explanation of why the article should be deleted and their reasoning behind the request speedy or otherwise. It is much easier to patrol pages than to contribute in a substantial manner to the Wiki - that is to say writing and editing articles as that is the "substance" of the Wikipedia. Most persons don't read the wiki for the talk pages or the discussions which while important to the organizational character of Wiki is transparent to most readers. In this all editors' contribution are given equal weight although even though contribution to articles which is in essence the substance takes more time, work, thought and knowledge/expertise. It is for this reason that those patrolling and requesting deletes should do some work and act in good faith in assessing the article, before tagging them. Many new page patrollers are not experts in the subject matter discussed (and they don't have to be, but have a good head on their shoulders and be able to reason). I do not expect them to be members of Mensa International or such organizations but should be cautious in their application of the delete or speedy delete tag. I decided not to cite this article and rescued it because it is a perfect example of what I have mentioned in the foregoing. The article was originated by a lawyer versed in International Law (an expert in the field also one of my fields of academic study) and we had what appears to be a minor (as in under 18/21) who has received several cautions (and at the time had only 112 edits) tagging it for deletion. DeusImperator (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Deus: This article may have merit.  But the burden is on editors who want to keep it (you) to find books and magazine articles that talk about this topic.  Once you find those, you can use those to support the article, and include the sources in the article itself.  See WP:Citation.  If no one does that, the article may be deleted.  If you cannot find such sources, that is probably an indication that the organization is not important enough. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are able to comprehend what I am attempting to get through to you - maybe others can. IT IS NOT ABOUT THIS ARTICLE PER SE. Anyone and their dog can find sources for this article and do not need magazines or book to look up cites for this. Any fool can see the merits of the article -not may it does. That is why I choose this article to make my point! A simple search of the Google can provide necessary information regarding validity of subject it hsould not be deleted from Wiki article space. And my reason for not citing it - I could care less if this article is deleted - you do not have to put it in my userspace as I will have it deleted. An article such as this should not be deleted by simply tagged as someone can simply cite this article. I can go and tag every single article that is not cited for deletion if that is the case. My point is articles such as this should not be deleted, but rather should simply be tagged as not being cited and left but not tagged as a speedy delete or request for delete. Because if this is the case I can/will go ahead and tag the thousands of articles that are not cited for delete. So that fact alone should tell you something about it - that there is a difference between the categories. To the Wiki community ... as a whole articles which can be quickly verified (Google search) to have cite-able sources should not be tagged for delete - anything more than a Google search is not needed. That is the reason for simply tagging (needing cite) a continuing to another task. DeusImperator (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I changed my !vote to Keep, based on the sources provided. --Noleander (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anyone who is concerned with the lack of references in the article only has to click on the words "news", "books" and "scholar" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process and they will find hundreds of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. Hence the reason for this article being a good candidate for such a discussion I am trying to generate and bring to the attention of everyone. DeusImperator (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I added two sources, plenty more.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation - There are sources, yes, but they are entire books, and not inlined, so I cannot tell if any of the material in the article comes from the books. Therefore, I have no idea if the level of coverage meets the requirements of WP:GNG, i.e, non-trivial, independent, reliable, etc.  As a matter of fact, I have no idea if those books are even about the Center at all from just looking at them.  If the sources aren't up to snuff, the article might as well be unsourced.  I would say to let it go, and create the article properly and with properly referenced sources the next time.  MSJapan (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OOPs sorry did not provide a reference in Braille... Here is the text from the link which on the first page of the link that existed at the very beginning of the discussion.

GENERAL DATA Official Title	Agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine (STCU), as amended by the Protocol of 7 July 1997, Type of Agreement	 Multilateral Usual Title	STCU - Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine Place of Signature	Kiev Date of Signature	25/10/1993 Date of Entry Into Force	04/05/1994 Duration	Indefinite Objective of Agreement	 Through the creation of an international Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU), to prevent the proliferation of technologies and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction, to support activities for peaceful purposes and gradual disarmament, and thereby to assist the former Soviet States in their transition to a market economy; also to give weapons scientists opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities. International organisation established by the treaty	 Science and Technology Center in Ukraine Remarks	The EC and Euratom acceded as one party to the Agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine, concluded on 25 October 1993 by Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States, as amended by the 1997 Protocol.

When Sweden acceded the EU in 1995 it withdrew from this Agreement.

The Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU) is an intergovernmental organisation established by its donor countries and dedicated to the non–proliferation of technologies and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems by facilitating R&D projects and encouraging technology transfer and commercialisation.

The objectives of the Centre include giving weapons scientists and engineers, particularly those who possess knowledge and skills related to weapons of mass destruction or missile delivery systems, in Ukraine and other States of the CIS, opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities and to contribute thereby to the solution of national or international technical problems, and to the wider goals of reinforcing the transition to market-based economies responsive to civil needs. Relation and Association with Other Agreements	 -Protocol to amend the agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine (STCU) OJ Number	L225 OJ Date	12/08/1998 OJ Page	5 Nature of Agreement	scientific and technological co-operation agreement Depositary	Ukraine Contracting Parties	European Atomic Energy Community, European Community, Azerbaijan, Canada, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, United States of America, Uzbekistan Official Languages	English, French, Ukrainian Subject Matters	 Research and Innovation military research scientific research Management	 Conseil d'administration Secrétariat Other Links	http://www.stcu.int/ EC PARTICIPATION Date of Signature	26/11/1998 Conclusion Date	26/11/1998 Ratification Status	S Conclusion Decision	Council Regulation (EC) No 1766/98 of 30 July 1998 concerning the accession by the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, acting as one party, to the Agreement to establish a science and technology centre in Ukraine, of 25 October 1993, between Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States of America OJ L 225, 12/08/1998 P. 2 and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 2387/98 of 3 November 1998 concerning the accession by the European Atomic Energy Community, and the European Community, acting as one party, to an Agreement having established in 1993 a Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine between Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States of America; OJ L 297 of 06/11/1998, p.4 Date of Entry Into Force	06/11/1998 Competence	Exclusive Legal Basis	 Treaty EAEC, Article 101 Treaty EC, Article 235 DeusImperator (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the standard is verifiable, as in "able to be verified", not "has sources now." AFD is not cleanup, WP:BEFORE would have resulted in finding sources existing.  That they don't exist in the article now is not a reason for deletion.  -- Jayron  32  04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In the end this is about something more than this article itself. It is about the process. This article can be cited (easily) but I have chosen not to because this article written by someone other than me, an expert in the field no less, was put up for deletion by an inexperienced editor experimenting on the Wiki goes to show an issue that I have - no it has not happened to be. The only reason I was able to catch this article was because of the problem editor had received cautions and I took the time to go through his edits and fix some problem issues - this was one of them. As I have stated earlier this is not about "my" article but rather that it should be saved even though it is not cited. I am contending the following:
 * A - Editors (as opposed to patrollers) put more time, work, thought and knowledge/expertise. So it would not be too much to ask that patrollers should do a Google search before putting an article up for deletion thus acting in good faith especially in regard to those in which they lack the expertise.
 * B - If the article appears to be Notable at a quick glance do request a speedy delete. No one would have bothered with this article if no one bothered to audit the work of the problem editor and fix the issues (there were a few).
 * C - If the article is not cited then tag as that do not tag for delete. (There was no rational provided for this delete by the patroller who requested the delete).
 * D - Patrollers with less than 500 edits should not be able to recommend article for deletion.
 * E - There has to be a process that flags problem editors so that thier work gets an audit and issues fixed.
 * However I don't see anyone talking about these issues - and these are systematic and this process this article is taking is just goes to illustrate this point. But even with this article I just don't understand whether it some people bother to actually evaluate the subject before providing an opinions. Actually I wish that not references or external references were added to make the point I am trying to make because it would force people to think and process information instead of trying to go through this a a "rote" process. Obviously all this writing can be easily fix by me by adding a cite to this but that would defeat the purpose of this discussion. I am hoping that someone doesn't remove the delete request but allows this discussion to continue as the issue is not the article but the process. DeusImperator (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop whining and fix the problems with the article ... you'll never get policy changed here - the AFD process exists to give you a chance to fix the problems, or else it gets deleted ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Deus:  The topic is notable, sure.  But you spent quite a bit of time writing lengthy comments here in the AfD page.  It would have been better if you had, instead, invested that time adding citations to the article.  One of the purposes of the AfD process is to educate editors about WP policies.  In this situation, the lesson you hopefully have learned is:  when you edit an article that has no citations (and you did edit this article extensively) you should take the time to find some citations and add them.  Cheers.  --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Coming here from AN/I, my opinion is that there is sufficient information for WP:V, and that the technicalities of sourcing the obvious are not reason for deletion when notability is clear.  But is is certainly  true that the best way to avoid difficulties is to add whatever is possible for sources.      DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (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.