Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings

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. One (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings[edit]

This article has been created out of process. It is essentially a content fork of of Russian apartment bombings, and is available word-for-word in the main article. As it is forked content, it has been redirected back to Russian apartment bombings but the article creator has undone this. It also needs to be mentioned that Russian apartment bombings is NOT at any such length which yet requires legitimate forking of content. Russavia ^Dialogue 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These bombings were a notable series of terrorism acts. It is fine to have a number of articles on such subjects. For example, we have an entire Category:Moscow theater hostage crisis. We can also have something like that here. It is fine to have some degree of content overlap, but probably the best approach would be to briefly summarize the corresponding content in main article. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about this at talk page of main article, Russian apartment bombings. Once again, this is not a matter of deletion but discussion.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when an article is entitled Evidence of..., this is blatant POV-pushing. Additionally, every single word is available word-for-word in Russian apartment bombings, which makes this a POV and content fork. We are an encyclopaedia, not a venue to advocate and to present "evidence" to "convict" subjects in the eyes of readers. That is so blatant, blind Freddy would see this article for what it is. And as you yourself say, there was no consensus for this on the talk page, yet you proceeded to create it anyway outside of process. That in itself is reason to merge back (which isn't necessary) and delete it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. We have Evidence of evolution, for example. It is fine to provide a list of evidence (per sources) with regard to notable events or controversies. I believe "evidence" is a sufficiently neutral title because it focuses on facts rather than opinions.Biophys (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out must articles like “Critique by some persons on alleged FSB non-involvement in Russian apartment bombings due to lack of evidence” go in a normal encyclopedia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this kind of article is essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why necessarily POV? For example, one could include "the evidence" and "criticism of the evidence" to balance it.Biophys (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is usually used to criticize theories not vice versa. (Igny (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment POV? WP is full of POV farms that start with the titles "Alleged..." which is far less real than credible evidence which has been presented. Seems advocating deletion along party lines. PetersV TALK 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable split, the main article would easily exceed 100k in size if this was merged back into the article. Martintg (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martin, no it wouldn't because it is still available word for word in the main article.

Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Changing_a_story_about_the_type_of_explosives is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#The_type_of_explosives_controversy.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#A_military_storage_with_RDX_disguised_as_.22sugar.22 is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#A_military_storage_with_RDX_disguised_as_.22sugar.22.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Incident_in_Russian_Parliament is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Incident_in_Russian_Parliament.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Alleged_GRU_involvement_in_Buynaksk_bombings is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Testimony_by_Alexey_Galkin.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Sealing_of_all_materials_by_Russian_Duma is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Sealing_of_all_materials_by_Russian_Duma.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Obstruction_of_Kovalev_commission is available almost word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Attempts_at_independent_investigation.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Arrest_of_independent_investigator_Trepashkin is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Arrest_of_independent_investigator_Trepashkin.

So I fail to see how this would increase article size anywhere close to 100k, when it is only at 57k now. At most it would increase article size by a couple of K. By all rights, if this article is kept, everything which is in the main article should be removed from that main article, in order to satisfy WP:CFORK guidelines, which in particular doesn't allow for duplicate identical content. And I doubt the conspiracy theorists amongst us would like to see that occur. Also, editors have been advised that cut-and-paste creation of articles is not within process, so I am somewhat stumped as to why an editor who was obviously aware of that discussion has acted out of process in relation to this article, in creating a POV content fork, and then demanding that it be debated when a merge/redirect is (rightly) done.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. This content is also duplicated at Theories of the Russian apartment bombings. Just how many articles do we require? I am now counting three articles with duplicate content. Every single one of these articles has been created out of process. This has to stop! --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. So, that is why you reinserted these segments back? Actually, I removed some other parts of the text - about "List of suspects" and "Theories". However everything was reinserted back by others for whatever reasons. Currently, the struggle around this article simply does not allows constructive editing. In the long run, some of the duplicated content should be shortened/removed, but a certain degree of content overlap is fine.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone keeps deleting these paragraphs in the main article, too.[1] --ilgiz (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think splitting content into a daughter article is a good thing. Some of this can be deleted in the main article but a brief summary should be kept. I would rename the article to a more neutral term like Alleged evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings. Obviously the article should present both sides of the argument. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least where the original alleged duplication is concerned it's regarding one section "Other related events" and some following versus "Explosives controversies" and some following. There is significant material, particularly the entire outset and exposition of the article, which is not a duplicate. There are better ways of handling duplication of more minor content than deletion of an entire article. It's not appropriate to paint the entire article as a complete fork/duplicate. PetersV TALK 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as no valid reason for deletion has been provided by the nominator. Article created out of process? The normal process for article creation is 1. Click creation link, 2. write content, 3. click save button. I fail to see how either step has been neglected by the editor in this case. As for the contention of fork, I believe the nominator is misinterpreting slight overlap in covered topics -- inevitable to give our dear reader a sense of context -- as content forking. Wikipedia is not a 3NR database; context is important here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure, rename, revamp, but don't get rid of the information altogether. It's decently sourced and provides important insight into the event. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplication of the content in several articles is confusing for the readers. Content should not be forked into multiple articles.DonaldDuck (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clear POV fork. It simply duplicates material from Theories of the Russian apartment bombings and at the same time "conveniently" drops all counterarguments and opposite views. Offliner (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging and moving content around is the answer to that problem, not deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right now all content forks indicated by Russavia above have been removed from main article by User:Offliner, and the article was protected. So, there is no question about content forks.Biophys (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back into the main article. There is no need for POV forks (explicitly not permitted in Wikipedia). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOV by assuming that there was FSB involvement in the event, and fails WP:SYNTH as combining sources to advance a novel theory. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.