Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Sarindar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Majorly (hot!) 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Operation Sarindar
- Delete. POV fork of a POV fork. This page used to be about "Russia and Saddam WMD" and it narrowly survived AfD. I and other editors added in information questioning the legitimacy of the claims made here, so the user who created the page, Biophys (talk · contribs), renamed it, creating a POV fork that allowed him to delete much of the information that had been added. What is left here is simply not notable. This is mostly one Romanian guy's fantasy, with support from suspected criminal John Shaw. Neither has any evidence to back their statements up, and the ISG, Pentagon, and Russian government have said so. "Operation Sarindar" gets exactly 17 google hits, not one of them a WP:RS. Fourth hit is wikipedia; most of the rest are blogs like "fuckfrance.com." Hardly notable. I did a lexis/nexis search and a search of proquest newspapers and got exactly zero hits. Not one in major newspapers, magazines, or journals owned by either database. This topic is far less notable than the conspiracy theory that narrowly survived AfD a week ago. This page is a POV fork of that page and should be deleted. The one source for most of the claims, Ion Mihai Pacepa, defected in 1978 and would have no basis for knowing anything that happened in the 1990s and 2000s between Russia and Saddam. This is all speculation portrayed as if it were fact, mostly from sources like Newsmax that fail the test of WP:RS. csloat 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. First, this article was considered for deletion a few days ago, and the decision was "keep". Second, POV fork of which article? If I understand correctly, he claims this is a POV fork of itself (?) Biophys 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination is violation of official WP policy. The policy say: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.". See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. We had a discussion with User cslot at the artice talk page and he agreed to follow normal dispute resolution process in talk with administaror. Cslot said: "you are quite right that everyone should seek DR on that article." - see [1]. But instead of discussion, he nominated this article for deletion second time. Biophys 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - it's a POV fork of the Russia and Saddam article, which was a POV fork of another article. The problem, Biophys, is you changed the article title in order to avoid the evidence which contradicted your POV. Effectively creating a new article with a more narrow scope than the original. This new article scope is in fact so narrow that it gets only 17 google hits, most from blogs or from wikipedia itself. There is not a single print article in a reliable source on this topic -- not one. csloat 07:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, this is the same article. Only title was changed - as recommended by on of previous AfD discussion participants, and the overall focus of the article was changed - to make clear that this story is about disappearance of WMD, not about conventional weapons. The article was improved since the last AfD discussion: it cites more refrences and more focused. Obviously, an article can not be "fork" (repetition of content) of itself or another non-existing article.Biophys 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously this is a new article -- as you say, the overall focus and the title as changed; it forked from an article about several issues (which was barely notable) to one about a single issue which is completely non-notable. csloat 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, this is the same article. Only title was changed - as recommended by on of previous AfD discussion participants, and the overall focus of the article was changed - to make clear that this story is about disappearance of WMD, not about conventional weapons. The article was improved since the last AfD discussion: it cites more refrences and more focused. Obviously, an article can not be "fork" (repetition of content) of itself or another non-existing article.Biophys 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it's a POV fork of the Russia and Saddam article, which was a POV fork of another article. The problem, Biophys, is you changed the article title in order to avoid the evidence which contradicted your POV. Effectively creating a new article with a more narrow scope than the original. This new article scope is in fact so narrow that it gets only 17 google hits, most from blogs or from wikipedia itself. There is not a single print article in a reliable source on this topic -- not one. csloat 07:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. It is definitely POV fork. It's called "Operation Sarindar", but operation Sarindar according to Pacepa referred only to Lybia and Pacepa claimed that simialr plan existed for Iraq. Pacepa never said that this plan for Iraq was called "Sarindar". Moreover, "Operation sarindar" refers only to Pacepa allegations. Biophys has added under this already contraversial title allegations of John A. Shaw and Yossef Bodansky - which do not claim that this was called "Operation Sarindar". So even the title of this article - Original research - because Biophys never supported that Shaw and Bodansky called this plan - "Operation Sarindar" and Biophys never proved that plan for Iraq was called by Pacepa "Operation Sarindar" (this name existed for Lybia only). Additionaly, Biophys inserts original research statements not supported any sources that "similar (to Pacepa) statements were made by Shaw, Bodansky and McInerney" - which is both violation of WP:OR and WP:POINT. Biophys makes a point by publishing this article - that Russia is guilty of WMD proliferation. Although, there are academic sources (!!!) evidencing sale of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq by the US he never added them to the article - that is the reason why Biophys was changing the name of the article - not to let other editors to add these sources against the US - it is also WP:POINT and WP:TEND violations. See all sources about the US proliferation there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Sarindar#Ion_Mihai_Pacepa. Further, Pacepa, as was said, defected in 1978, - his allegations that he knew anything about modern Iraq - are hilarious and attempt to earn extra money for his defection. Vlad fedorov 03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable and well referenced.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sancta simplicatis. Piotrus manage to change your votes, do you have a template for this? I wonder if you haven't learned from your ArbCom case? Vlad fedorov 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy: Renomination by the same nominator after 6 days essentially lacking new arguments. Ineligible for deletion, as it was nominated for deletion under its previouos title on April 13 and the consensus has been to keep it (April 21, 2007) . NB that that the result was to keep rather than no consensus.
- it narrowly survived AfD
- AfD is not a vote, width of a margin doesn't matter here. The result was to keep six days ago. Colchicum 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - that was a different article. This article is about a much narrower topic with no notability whatsoever. You think 17 google hits, without a single reliable source, is enough to support a Wikipedia article? Bizarre. csloat 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the procedure must be respected carefully, especially when some content is about to be deleted. Wait for three months and renominate it. But if you have content dispute with other contributors, you probably should change the article rather than nominate it for deletion.Colchicum 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the same article. It's a different article. This isn't a content dispute. It's a dispute about whether "Operation Sarindar" - a probably-mythical operation that is not referred to in any book or published article except for a mere 17 mentions on blogs (some of which are references back to this wikipedia page) is encyclopedic content. This is not notable. I have not violated any procedure; this is a new article and it should be deleted, period. csloat 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the procedure must be respected carefully, especially when some content is about to be deleted. Wait for three months and renominate it. But if you have content dispute with other contributors, you probably should change the article rather than nominate it for deletion.Colchicum 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - that was a different article. This article is about a much narrower topic with no notability whatsoever. You think 17 google hits, without a single reliable source, is enough to support a Wikipedia article? Bizarre. csloat 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. As Piotrus says, seems notable and well referenced. Sancta simplicatis — I like that. Though, if we are to use Latin, we may as well use it correctly: it's sancta simplicita. Turgidson 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment - You call this notable? csloat 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." See WP:Notability. This has nothing to do with Google searches. But all of that does not matter, because you violated official WP rules by nominating this article for deletion (see above). Biophys 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It has been asserted that this topic "is not referred to in any book or published article except for a mere 17 mentions on blogs". Well, I beg to disagree. First of all, there is a reference in the article to: Alyssa A. Lappen, "Iraq's Role in Terrorism" (Review of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq, by Ryan Mauro, PublishAmerica, September 12, 2005. ISBN 1413774733), The American Thinker, September 23, 2006. According to WP, The American Thinker is a "daily internet publication"; is that the same as a "blog"? Furthermore, the quoted article is a review of a book; the author and publisher both have WP articles; and the book itself has an ISBN number. Is that not a book? Finally, the article by Ion Mihai Pacepa has appeared in The Washington Times -- I know that the nominator has made it plain here he doesn't like that newspaper, but still, according to the WP article on the Washington Times, this newspaper has an average daily circulation of 103,017, and has more than a dozen contributors or editors with wiki articles. The reason the Pacepa article doesn't appear in those 17 Google hits is because the relevant fragment there simply reads: "in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."" Turgidson 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- American Thinker is a blog, yes. And the book review is of a self-published book by an 18-year old -- hardly notable. And it's not clear the book actually discusses Operation Sarindar; the author of the blog attributes that mention to Pacepa. And clearly a search of google books finds zero hits for operation sarindar. Ultimately all we have is the Washington Times piece -- regardless of whether I like the paper, this is an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting. And it is the opinion of someone with no evidence, who has been removed from a position to know anything about this for thirty years. It's just not encyclopedic; the only reason anyone would consider it so is to push a conspiracy theory POV. csloat 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- According to the article on American Thinker, this daily internet publication belongs to Category:Computer webzines, which is not a subset of Category:Blogs, from what I can tell. As for Ryan Mauro, he will be 21 on July 2, 2007, which is not the same as 18. Moreover, how exactly does the age of the author change the equation here? For Pacepa, the argument seems to be that he's too old to know anything about what's going on, for Mauro, that he's too young. Is this getting into ageism? Turgidson 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Webzines and blogs are both self-published, with no editorial oversight; I don't care which category you put it in; it is not a WP:RS. Mauro was 18 when he wrote the book. Yes, his age is a factor. Pacepa is not too old; the problem is he hasn't been associated with the Communist Party in 30 years. Stop distorting my arguments; it is annoying, and you are well aware that this has nothing to do with ageism. Finally, Mauro does not seem to mention Operation Sarindar anyway; that mention comes from the blog/webzine and is not a WP:RS. Again, the only RS we have is Washington Times, and it is a mere opinion piece from somebody who is not in any position to have knowledge about such things. csloat 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- According to the article on American Thinker, this daily internet publication belongs to Category:Computer webzines, which is not a subset of Category:Blogs, from what I can tell. As for Ryan Mauro, he will be 21 on July 2, 2007, which is not the same as 18. Moreover, how exactly does the age of the author change the equation here? For Pacepa, the argument seems to be that he's too old to know anything about what's going on, for Mauro, that he's too young. Is this getting into ageism? Turgidson 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, let's agree to disagree on what constitutes a blog. And, OK, I will not push further my point about Mauro's book--I made my point, you made yours, fine. And I'm happy to see you now agree that the Washington Times can be considered an RS--whether we agree or not with its editorial policy. At the risk of beating to death the point about Pacepa's credibility, though, let me just say one more thing: The issue is not whether he's "been associated with the Communist Party in 30 years". First, it's not 100% clear he ever was -- at least, that's not stated explicitly in the article on him -- though probably he was, given his position. What matters, though, is that he was a two-star General in the Securitate, advisor to President Nicolae Ceauşescu, acting chief of his foreign intelligence service, and state secretary in Romania’s Ministry of Interior — the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. In that capacity, he came to be privvy to a lot of secrets —such as the Sarindar plans — whose shelf life has not expired yet (some of the actors involved in this matter were around in the 70s, after all!) So I still maintain Pacepa's insights are still relevant — otherwise, why would he still be published in National Review Online, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and the online newspaper FrontPage Magazine? Turgidson 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, when you intentionally misinterpret my words it is both dishonest and annoying; please stop. I did not say that WT's editorial policy had anything to do with this; I said this was an opinion piece, independent of whether some people agree with it. Second, the point is not what secrets he was privy to -- the point is that he stopped being privy to such secrets in 1978. So anything he wrote in 2005 about this is sheer speculation from someone who is in no better position to have anything to say about it than you or I. csloat 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- These accusations of my "intentionally misinterpreting" your words are annoying. Regarding the Washington Times (a matter that I hoped we'd put behind), I refer you to the discussion here, specifically, to the following edit: "Third, this fantasy has simply not been supported by any reliable source. All we have is opinion pieces stating unverified opinions, and those pieces are in extremely partisan sources -- Washington Times (owned by the Unification church)...". That's your opinion, fine. But please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your words—I will not respond anymore to such assertions, which are not conducive to arriving at a consensus on the matter under discussion. Turgidson 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, when you intentionally misinterpret my words it is both dishonest and annoying; please stop. I did not say that WT's editorial policy had anything to do with this; I said this was an opinion piece, independent of whether some people agree with it. Second, the point is not what secrets he was privy to -- the point is that he stopped being privy to such secrets in 1978. So anything he wrote in 2005 about this is sheer speculation from someone who is in no better position to have anything to say about it than you or I. csloat 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- American Thinker is a blog, yes. And the book review is of a self-published book by an 18-year old -- hardly notable. And it's not clear the book actually discusses Operation Sarindar; the author of the blog attributes that mention to Pacepa. And clearly a search of google books finds zero hits for operation sarindar. Ultimately all we have is the Washington Times piece -- regardless of whether I like the paper, this is an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting. And it is the opinion of someone with no evidence, who has been removed from a position to know anything about this for thirty years. It's just not encyclopedic; the only reason anyone would consider it so is to push a conspiracy theory POV. csloat 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It has been asserted that this topic "is not referred to in any book or published article except for a mere 17 mentions on blogs". Well, I beg to disagree. First of all, there is a reference in the article to: Alyssa A. Lappen, "Iraq's Role in Terrorism" (Review of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq, by Ryan Mauro, PublishAmerica, September 12, 2005. ISBN 1413774733), The American Thinker, September 23, 2006. According to WP, The American Thinker is a "daily internet publication"; is that the same as a "blog"? Furthermore, the quoted article is a review of a book; the author and publisher both have WP articles; and the book itself has an ISBN number. Is that not a book? Finally, the article by Ion Mihai Pacepa has appeared in The Washington Times -- I know that the nominator has made it plain here he doesn't like that newspaper, but still, according to the WP article on the Washington Times, this newspaper has an average daily circulation of 103,017, and has more than a dozen contributors or editors with wiki articles. The reason the Pacepa article doesn't appear in those 17 Google hits is because the relevant fragment there simply reads: "in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."" Turgidson 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." See WP:Notability. This has nothing to do with Google searches. But all of that does not matter, because you violated official WP rules by nominating this article for deletion (see above). Biophys 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment - You call this notable? csloat 22:31, 27 April 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.
