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 redirect to Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO. So actually this is a "merge" consensus, but I'm implementing it as a redirect, allowing interested editors to conduct the merger from the history. Why? The creator admits that they made up the title, the content is barely sourced, and, as it has been noted, the notion the article conveys that there was some sort of agreement is part of the Russian justification for the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Which means, for us Wikipedians, that the existence of the article is problematic on WP:NPOV grounds unless somebody manages to reference it much better through reliable secondary sources. Therefore, so as not to prolong the stay of this material in mainspace, I'm redirecting the page before the merger (if any) is completed. Sandstein 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baker-Gorbachev Pact[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Baker-Gorbachev Pact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The idea behind this article is that, in 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker made some sort of secret pact regarding NATO and eastern Europe. While it is understandable why Gorbachev had the impression that commitments had been made, no "pact" exists with text or signatures that we could link to. Sources used on this article also refer to it as a myth. The creating of this article this week is also likely a product of recentism, as the idea of a "broken promise" is central to pro-Putin propaganda in his war on Ukraine. There are also ongoing discussions at Talk:NATO and Talk:Enlargement of NATO. Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 16:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you erase this? This was something historical, that actually happened. It may be used by Russia or whomever as propaganda (and calling something propaganda is a matter of subjective debate), but that doesn't make it less true, as using Holodomor as anti-Russian propaganda wouldn't mean it didn't happen. Actually, given the current references to this, it makes it more relevant to shed light on it.
I have used various different sources in the article that back the existance of this pact:
I could agree in changing the name of the article (I didn't use the word 'Agreement' and I was unsure whether to use 'Pact'). Perhaps this should be an article on 9, February 1900 Memorandum of Baker-Gorbachev conversation on OTAN enlargement or something like that. Nevertheless, when I named the article, I looked for other wikipedia articles on Pacts and saw that even an exchange of notes can become a pact (a pact is not always signed, which most certanly could become then a Treaty: pacts can even be verbal, or, as I said, a simple exchange of notes: see Pact of Cartagena. Should we delete this article as well?
Saying this is Russian Propaganda when I'm referencing the original declassified document doesn't hold as an argument. I think I have supplied enough sources and even concedeed a change in the name of the article. Jasandia (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2022 (CET)
Just a quick reply to two things. We do have an article on the Two Plus Four Agreement, which was the topic that James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev were discussing in the memo you link to. Many individual conversations went into negotiating that agreement, but I don't think every conversation between negotiators deserves its own Wikipedia article. So I'm not sure changing the name changes that the substance isn't on its own notable. We already have a section on that Two Plus Four page that discusses this issue, and I think that's a fine place for this sort of information. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but while the Two Plus Four Agreement shares Germany as a topic of the Baker-Gorbachov pact, as the very section you mention says: "The treaty does not mention future NATO-membership of other countries", but these specific 'negotiations' or 'pact' (verbal but recorded) did. And those assurances, not Germany full accession to NATO and/or unification, are a central topic in current events, so I thing it is important to have a specific article on this. A topic of which historians and journalists are still unearthing things as of 2022 (see the Der Spiegel reference). And for sure, there should be at least a line about this in anything related to NATO expansion (it is a very important historical matter, given that NATO was later expanded Eastwards and this has repeatedly caused tension). I would gladly add the sentence that this concessions to the USSR were 'alleged' or are 'disputed' if that was the case, but we have declassified memo, how can you dispute such a solid OG source--- Jasandia (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2022 (CET).
Right, the Two Plus Four Agreement doesn't include any language about NATO enlargement... because there wasn't anything that was agreed to. That's kind of the point, that there isn't a piece of paper with signatures and official seals from 1990 saying NATO will never add more countries. And the fact that, clearly, other countries did join NATO means that whatever this was, it wasn't upheld by anyone and just makes it more clear that it's not a pact, and wasn't an influence in 1999, or 2004, or the other years that counties freely joined NATO. Obviously historians and political scientists have an open and academic debate about how seriously we should view the elements, like NATO expansion, that were discussed (and no one is saying they weren't discussed) but didn't end up in the final text of the 1990 treaty. If you go to that "one inch" line in the declassified document you keep mentioning, the important part is the sentence right after. "We could have discussions in a two plus four context that might achieve this." But they didn't, they didn't achieve an agreement with anything to do with future NATO membership. So I think the Two Plus Four Treaty gets a Wikipedia article, but I don't think that pieces that didn't make it in the treaty are notable enough to be highlighted in the same way. Does that make sense? Lastly, about Pact of Cartagena, other stuff exists is a problematic argument here on AfDs.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 20:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is described in reliable sources. It may have gained interest due to recent events, but that doesn't preclude existence of an article describing the matter. The title must be changed however - a "Pact" is a formal agreement, full stop. This never was; many promises were made, many assurances were made...maybe (see Gorbachev's vaccilation over the decades) - it being codified is necessary for it to be a "Pact".
I'm going to be doing a little bit of copyediting on the article, as it does appear to have been written hastily, and it needs some refinement. But this is a matter worthy of an article in Wikipedia. WP is littered with thousands of articles about essentially non-notable athletes, e.g. David Clemens - no offense intended to Mr. Clemens. If we can support the existence of articles about fairly trivial subjects, we can support an article about this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I agree with user Metropolitan90. It's a fascinating subject but it is ancillary to other 'larger' subjects. Anastrophe (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in the interim, renamed the article to Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations, as the previous name was simply nonsensical; a pact is a formal agreement. What is described are assurances and promises during negotiations, with nothing committed to a contract. Still, it's an inaccurate title; the discussions involved many more than just Baker and Gorachev. This will suffice until the article is merged elsewhere.Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article proposed for deletion refers to events with strong support from both reliable primary sources (the cited National Security Archive) as well from reliable secondary sources (the cited article of Der Spiegel, the one of NYT and many more). Deleting the page would be a strong violation of the WP:NPOV policy. The author proposing deletion failed to comment on why the cited sources should not be considered reliable. Morgoonki (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not supported by sources when it's very name does not appear in any of them. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Morgoonki, just want to reply regarding sourcing. Having sources, even from reliable places, doesn't equal notability. Take that New York Times article from January, I think it does give a good summary of the issue over the last 30 years and why it's still such a talking point. But I think if you read it, it debunks the idea that an agreement (or "pact") was made, and calls it "a selective account of what really happened, used to justify Russian aggression for years." Likewise, the Foreign Affairs article prominently says "new evidence shows that the United States never actually made such a pledge." So yes, those are "sources", but they're saying that the topic that this article is about is doesn't actually exist. Wikipedia doesn't typically have articles about things that don't exist, but perhaps you can make an argument that the misconception itself deserves an article?-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 14:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again... It's not a 'reliable' source like New York Times, but one of the source is a U.S. Memorandum... And I have added here a link with several more official documents to expand an article on the assurances and how US policy gradually changed as the Soviet empire collapsed -document 13- (and how Gorbachov even proposed that the USSR joined NATO -document 19-): https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early This huge investigation with primary sources reveal how the US gradually changed its view as the Soviet Union grew weaker. As I have stated bellow, perhaps we should change the article's name and use 'assurances', which is a word that keeps repiting in primary and secondary sources (I listed some bellow) Jasandia (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2022 (CET)
No references in sources to a "Baker-Gorbachev Pact". The term seems to be a pure invention and therefore clearly unsuitable in Wikipedia.Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, and I have admited, that the name might be changed, but from that to delition there is a big step as there was an actual meeting between U.S. and Soviet Union and a memorandum confirms assurances were given to the President of the USSR (whose internationally and legally recognised successor state, by the way, is Russia). I must say, I keep thinking this was a pact, even if it was classified during a time, verbal or written, given the top position of both superpower officials. A lot of pacts are like that, mostly when they are refiring to third parties not present in the reunion (NATO or countries such as Poland, Hungary, etc.).
In any case, I think we could find a compromise, seing there is not consensus on deletion, an go for a change of name and even expand on the article further than february 1990.
The way I see it, the word 'assurance' is the one that keeps repiting in all the domcuments (documents, primary and secondary) as well as other articles that do exist on this topic (look for soviet+assurances+baker+gorbavhec and you'll see). Some examples:
My sugestion: something like:
  • Baker-Gobachev security assurances
  • US assurances to the Soviet Union on NATO enlargement
Jasandia (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2022 (CET)
I was the first to wonder whether this article should exist and to hint at deletion; my reasoning can be read here, and I can summarise it in the following lines: the article was created within the immediate context of the current invasion — in a form of WP:RECENTISM which is making us look into a historical event from the perspective of an ongoing war which may or may not be an indirect implication of what may or may not have happened at this alleged 'pact' —, and it did not tell the full story — making it seem that the US and the USSR made a promise (which wasn't put in writing and signed, by the way; it was only discovered recently in declassified documents) which the West then broke by allowing 14 countries east of Germany to join NATO (which understandably angered Russia and which justifies Putin's ongoing invasion), while ignoring the fact that the real agreement (the one that was written and signed) was actually the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (a.k.a. 2+4 Agreement), which did not mention the issue of NATO expansion east of Germany.
Having said that, upon discussing this deletion, we must begin by understanding that the subject of the article is a conversation! It was not a pact or an agreement; it was just one of dozens or perhaps hundreds of bilateral conversations (some more secret than others, some declassified and others not yet) that must have taken place in preparation for the writing and signing of the 2+4 Agreement! Does a conversation and a preliminary intention for the text of a treaty have sufficient relevance to have an article of its own on Wikipedia (especially when that intention was not put in practice in the treaty)? In my opinion, no; that would be an unreasonable criterion for the creation of articles: what matters most is what was agreed to in the end, not what might have been agreed to. (Changing the name, as others have suggested, does not fix the problem of the lack of notability inherent to this topic.)
Now, what about the content of the article (i.e., that Baker and Gorbachev, in a closed meeting whose contents were declassified a few years ago, may have agreed that the final text of the 2+4 Agreement should state that NATO would not expand east)? Does that deserve mention on Wikipedia? Yes, but not in an article of its own; rather, properly contextualised within the article about the treaty about which these Baker-Gorbachev conversations really were. We can certainly add to that article, in the relevant section, a few lines or a paragraph stating exactly this 'pact', within the context of explaining that it had no practical implication in the treaty. It's just that; there isn't a lot more new information in this article under discussion that isn't already in the article about the treaty (except perhaps for the picture!).
Therefore, I propose merging into Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO. It seems the most reasonable option. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what there is to merge since that article already covers the topic in much more detail than here. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Keepcalmandchill: I was thinking about the actual negotiation between Baker and Gorbachev: the informal agreement is not relevant for it to have an article of its own (as argued above), but it should be somewhere. One or two lines should do — something like: "In one of the preliminary conversations for the signing of the treaty, Baker and Gorbachev addressed the possibility of preventing NATO from expanding eastward, in a private conversation held on 9 February 1990, as declassified documents reveal. This idea ended up not being reflected on the text of the signed treaty." If this is such a short addition that it does not technically make sense to call it a 'merge', then let my !vote be considered as 'delete', because I really don't see what else there is to be merged; but the addition of these sentences was what I had in mind when I wrote 'merge'. In practice, I think 'merging' and 'deleting' are basically almost the same outcome here. LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A falsehood exploited by Putinist propaganda. In fact, NATO, as an official organization, did not promise anything at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all a Pact is not a Treaty, and it well can be even verbal between two leaders. And it's not precisely unheard of of classified pacts between wuperpowers affeting third parties without those parties being present.
In any case, no one is even suggesting that this must remain as a Pact. Someone already changed the article to 'negotiations'. They existed and are historically relevant! This 'assurances' have been discussed by politicians like Gorvachev, historians and the media for years! And this is topic diserves an article on its own, even if we changed the name to US assurances to Russia on NATO expansion or even 'Controversy on NATO expansion' or something similar.
That way we could expand it to more than February 1990 and even add a section of 'use as Russian propaganda' or whatever. Because this is a topic far larger and continued in time than a Treaty affecting Germany reunification. It doesn't make any sense simply merging this there. That is not where this belongs. My opinion remains: keep and change name, perhaps to US assurances to Russia on NATO expansion and expand it. Jasandia (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (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.
More