Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability


 * 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. Deor (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is not valid because it concerns a matter which probably doesn't exist. One cannot ignore the fact that this fiction (Syrian opposition groups possessing and/or using chemical weapons) is the thesis of a massive propaganda campaign spearheaded by the Syrian government, unquestionably to deflect guilt from its own use of chemical weapons which is well known. It is not surprising that supporters of the Syrian government would attempt to utilize Wikipedia to further their propaganda just as they plant articles in the media, faked videos on youtube, and call in to radio talk shows. However scrutinizing the material of this page reveals a lack of weight of evidence to the effect that the stated subject of the article exists in reality, that it is no more than a subject of speculation.

Charges leveled by the Syrian government to the effect that the opposition has used chemical weapons have occurred in response to the reports of chemical weapons attacks (surely by that very government) in order to deny its own guilt. This is like when a murderer (Joe) accuses someone else (Mary) of killing the victim (Peter): would wikipedia allow a page entitled "Mary's capability for murdering Peter"?

My point is backed up by the (lack of) content on the page itself. The one paragraph lede mentions two entities that support the allegation, one being the Syrian government itself (the perpetrator wishing to escape justice) and the Russian government which happens to be the main supplier of weapons to the Syrian government. And from what I have seen in recent months, even the Russian government hasn't been actively pushing that fiction; rather they were part of an international agreement for the destruction of the chemical weapons which the regime has finally admitted to possessing. And then the REST OF THE PAGE is under ONE section: "Possible sources of chemical weapons." So with no good reason to believe that the title of the page even exists, most of the page is devoted to SPECULATION on how it COULD have been the case! That is like if, without any evidence of such an incident, I wrote an article entitled "Possible ways you could have beaten your wife." Which newspaper would print that?

The fact that some otherwise reliable sources or entities have pondered such possibilities doesn't change the essence of the argument I have supplied. In the fog of war there are always confusions and a range of interpretations of evidence. However most of this discussion in the press is not by disinterested parties but from sources associated with the propaganda campaign I have described. This may well include Wikipedia editors, though of course editors' discussion points should be taken in good faith and judged on their merits, regardless. The introduction of such propaganda material (sometimes even routed through an otherwise reliable source) is frequent in articles over the Syrian situation and needs to be addressed on various pages. However this particular page has no reason for even existing, and any reliable material in it (if any) can be used on a different page such as one that discussed the undisputed use of chemical weapons in Syria and claims regarding their source. But you cannot just write a page about something that probably doesn't exist in the first place. Interferometrist (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe there is enough reliable information to justify a separate article on this topic. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The information may be included into the Syria chemical weapons program page, but it seems to be out of Scope of that article. Sometimes there is a need to have multiple articles to avoid a single article from restricting the coverage about notable topics. Ref. WP:POVFUNNEL.
 * Also take note of the last post in the "Added fringe tag" discussion on the talk page. A citation from "the mainstream Western view is that there is "no evidence". The mainstream view in some non-Western countries like Russia is that there is."  Erlbaeko (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Longstanding WP:POVFORK from Ghouta chemical attacks et al. There is widespread agreement in the mainstream media, Human Rights Watch, and every government commission outside of a handful of Syrian allies, that the rebels seem to lack the capacity to launch the Ghouta chemical attacks; yet all but one of the paragraphs in the body tries to argue the reverse. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims; some paragraphs uncritically cite no source except Sergei Lavrov. Normally NPOV/weight violations are a fixable problem that do not mean deletion is necessary, but in this case the entire article is a violation, making a non-neutral claim simply by its existence. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 21.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lavrov should be considered to be a reliable source for encyclopaedic purposes.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication Syrian rebels have ever achieved chemical weapons capability beyond a handful of dubious claims by pro-Assad government officials. This is only a matter of contention in fringe outlets. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete seems a pov collection of offscourings Sayerslle (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. Shii (tock) 22:18, 28 June 2014 (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.