Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosvinsky Mountain

Add links
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 delete. deleteing because its unsourced despite efforts to do so Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosvinsky Mountain[edit]

Kosvinsky Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a single source, no grounds for notability demonstrated. — Dædαlus Contribs 07:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article creator is also associated with the Alfa-Tsentr hoax article, this is likely related to their hoax. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually appears to be a real place. My guess is that there are more sources than just the one on it. Protonk (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It's a real geographic location and a notable Russian military site, to boot. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Youngamerican. Joe Chill (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigate more closely' there is no ru: page on Косвинский камень. There is no trace of either name in the NGA (?) database. We did not have an article about it which seems odd. The mention in Washington PostTimes seems legit, but
    1. Can't we at least find the original article?
    2. We know how inaccurate some CIA documents are...
    3. We don't know if this was a genuine document, even if the Wash PostTimes article is genuine (although it appears to be).
    Subsequent mentions may rely onthat article. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
A perusal of the sources shown in the 'find sources' template above should immediately alleviate those concerns. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK take a look at "Scholar" - 4 cites
  1. a book by the author of the W. Times article - Bill Gertz.
  2. A Military article! Must be correct but the wording is so familiar " A separate facility at nearby Kosvinsky Mountain is believed to be a Russian version of the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center, but, unlike the 1950s-era US command post, one capable of surviving a modern thermonuclear weapon assault. " and the cite is... 51. Bill Gertz, “Moscow Builds Bunkers against Nuclear Attack,” Washington Times, 1 April 1997, p. 1.
  3. This military document says "According to recent CIA reports a new rocket complex" is being built there - strange we thought it was a command centre? The footnote will undoubtedly lead us to the CIA report, though we may not be permitted to see it.... Hm.. wait a second "91. Carey Scott, "Kremlin Refurbishes Nuclear Bunkers as Fear of NATO Grows," Sunday Times (London), 13 April 1997. a week or so after Gertz' article, unfortuantly the source is not readily available online - but it seems unlikely that Carey had access to the CIA report and more probable that he was citing Bill Gertz.
  4. A book about re-engineering a navel system "Transitioning NAVSEA to the future: strategy, business, organization" says there is "substantial evidence" but only cites "US Naval Institute 1999" - we may by now believe this cite is a document similar to 2 or 3 above.
So nothing there in Scholar of any substance (unless we can trace the cite for 4, and even then we may be "unlucky"). I have previously looked extensively and although there are plenty of eminent people mentioning it (for example asking questions in House Committees (?)(forgive my ignorance of the American government), there is, alas, so far, no sign that they know what they are talking about. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
That the dateline of the article is 1 April may be irrelevant. Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
See Talk:Kosvinsky Mountain for a 1996 news item. Also a later item that says these facilities were started in the 1970s, contradicting, I think, the 1997 article, and raising fresh questions. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Full copy of 4 at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA409194&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
only US Naval Institute cite(undated) is www.militaryperiscope.com "... researchers review information daily from hundreds of media sources worldwide. " In other words, refactored news reports of the kind we saw above. Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I subscribed to Militaryperiscope, no hits on their database. Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 21 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kosvinsky_Mountain&oldid=1137975512"