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The result was withdrawn by nominator. ~~ N (t/c) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Siberian Pipeline[edit]

Trans-Siberian Pipeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It can't be identified to which pipeline this article refers as there is no pipeline with this name. The article doesn't give information about the pipeline, but concentrates to the sabotage act by CIA - something, which is a hoax by some sources. If the article remains, et should be renamed to be in line with the main subject of this article, which is claimed sabotage act Beagel (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rewrite primarily from major media sources. This pipeline project was a major thorn in the side of the US-Europe-USSR triangle in the early 1980s and that part of the history is well-documented and should be the topic of the article. (The media generally gave it varying names such as "the Siberian pipeline", less commonly "Trans-Siberian"; I can't find out what the USSR formally called it.) The story about the explosion and the supposed cause at the hands of the CIA is largely sourced to a single memoir and should not be given undue weight, but by itself the tale inspired much commentary. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To which pipeline you refer? Because the current article mixes at least two different pipelines. This USSR-Europe-USA controversy about gas export/import and construction of gas pipelines was concentrated to the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline, which was constructed in 1982. This was and still is one of the major export pipelines of Russia. In US and Western-Europe media it was called West Siberian Pipeline. At the same time, the explosion happened in 1982 at the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline. So, it is not clear about which pipeline the story is about. Also, the article mainly is about sabotage act and not about the pipeline itself. As of controversial story about claimed sabotage act, it deserves its own article, but the name of this article should clearly state this and the text itself should make clear that although well referenced, all this story is based on a single memoir.Beagel (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs restructuring, and even renaming, none of which are justifications for deletion of a reliably sourced article. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It needs to be also rewritten to clearly state that all these reliable sources are secondary sources referring to the same primary source (see the comment by User:Dhartung. Beagel (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Do I get a vote?) I added some more references. Articles shouldn't be deleted because they're badly written- badly-written articles should be improved. According to Beagel, the Russians called the pipeline the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline, but since most Soviet pipelines weren't the subjects of United Nations debates and riffs within the NATO allies, few were widely known of, which is probably why it was referred to as simply "The Trans-Siberian Pipeline" by Reagan, Haig, CBS Evening News, and The New York Times. - Eric (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since it's now quite clear that these are two different trans-Siberia pipelines, I've separated them. References to the contentious pipeline that the White House referred to as the "Trans-Siberian pipeline" (the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline) remain in this article, and the story about the supposed CIA operation to blow up the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk I moved to a new article: Siberian pipeline sabotage. Sorry- I got the two different pipelines mixed up. - Eric (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. I am not sure, which pipeline it is because the article mixes information about different pipelines — some information refers to the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline and some refers to the the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline. How we can have an article about pipeline if we can't identify the object of the article. The solution could be rewriting this article and rename to reflect the subject which is a sabotage act. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The writing isn't great but it's way beyond notable. rootology (T) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination: the main issues are solved now, minor issues would be addressed in the editing process. This article is split now into two separate articles.Beagel (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (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.