Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil and weapons of mass destruction

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. clearly snowing Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil and weapons of mass destruction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no real functional purpose and might had been created as a boosterism attempt ("power projection"). The article clearly states that Brazil doesn't posses or has ever possesed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Similar articles in the series (In the form "Country_name and weapons of mass destruction") are created when a country is officially or clearly considered to currently posses or has possesed WMD by international organizations, such as Russia, France or Israel (Click to see country and WMD articles). This is not the case of Brazil, and this article seems to be the only exception.

The article limits itself to give notice of the unreferenced fact that Brazil "has the ability to build WMD if decided" and to present a list of the current/past nuclear power plants, that have nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Again, the other country articles about WMD are of countries that posses or has possesed WMD. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with AlexCovarrubias, there are no reference whatsoever of Brazil having weapons of mass destruction in other words nuclear weapons, therefore I think creating a whole article based on mere suppositions seems to me like an attempt to promote Brazil as a nuclear power. Supaman89 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is significantly covered by reliable sources such as [1] [2] [3] [4], and is therefore notable. Whether these references describe Brazil's possession of WMD or the lack of them, the fact that they treat the subject matter at all, to a sufficient degree for notability, is decisive. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The research to create a small reactor to serve as a submarine propulsor has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, which refers to bombs, missiles and such. See similar articles I left as examples. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be original research. All of the articles I cited specifically deal with the potential ability or inability of Brazil to develop WMD and/or their intentions in this respect. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See? That's the problem! The other articles in the form Country_name and weapons of mass desctruction weren't created just to "decide" if a country "can or can't" create WMD or its ability to do so, but to present the facts of countries that posses/has possesed WMD and willing to use them. The article of Brazil clearly states that they never had WMD. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing worse than an other stuff exists argument is an "other stuff doesn't exist" claim. We are here to discuss how the general terms of Wikipedia's notability guideline apply to this particular article's topic, not to infer non-notability on the basis of the non-existence of similar articles for similarly situated countries (unless comparable articles have actually been deleted at AFD, potentially showing consensus for this disposition.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources state that Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program during the 1970s-1980s. The government of Brazil admitted this in 1992 ([5]). There are also present day concerns about Brazil's proliferation capabilities (like in 2004 when Brazil denied IAEA access to enrichment sites [6]). This type of article is not only for countries that currently possess nuclear weapons. It is also for countries that pursued or developed them at some point. As for the content of the article, there are hundreds of academic sources regarding Brazil's nuclear weapons, for example:

"Brazil and Argentina embarked on a bilateral nuclear arms race in the 1970s and 80s. Through technology transfers from West Germany, which did not require IAEA safeguards, Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program, replete with enrichment facilities (including a large ultracentrifuge enrichment plant and several laboratory-scale facilities), a limited reprocessing capability, a missile program, a uranium mining and processing industry, and fuel fabrication facilities..." - WILPF ([7])
"In the late 1970s, Brazilian President Figueiredo approved a clandestine parallel nuclear program: the Autonomous Program of Nuclear Technology (PATN)..." - NTI ([8])
"Brazil pursued a covert nuclear weapons program in response to Argentina's program. It developed a modest nuclear power program, enrichment facilities (including a large ultracentrifuge enrichment plant and several laboratory-scale facilities), a limited reprocessing capability, a missile program, a uranium mining and processing industry, and fuel fabrication facilities. Brazil was supplied with nuclear materials and equipment by West Germany (which supplied reactors, enrichment and reprocessing facilities), France, and the US. The country has a dependable raw material base for developing atomic power engineering, highly skilled scientific cadres have been trained, technologies for enriching uranium have been obtained, and there are several nuclear research centers..." - GlobalSecurity.org([9])
"From the 1970s to 1990s, Brazil’s nuclear energy and missile programs raised several concerns with the international community. Brazil refused to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) until 1997, and its nuclear program was initially based on an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment facility. In 1975, the Brazilian military launched a covert nuclear weapons program called the “Parallel Program,” which produced two nuclear weapons... - NuclearFiles.org ([10])
"In 1975 Brazil signed an agreement with West Germany for the supply of technology for a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing. Following the deal, Brazil transferred the technology from its power plant projects to a secret program, code named Solimoes, to develop an atom bomb..." - PBS ([11])
"The dispute with the IAEA had raised concerns because of Brazil’s nuclear history: It began developing a covert nuclear weapons program in 1975"... - Arms Control Association ([12]). Limongi (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that several other articles talk about past or supposed nuclear weapons programs, for example: Romania and weapons of mass destruction, Burma and weapons of mass destruction, Algeria and weapons of mass destruction, Canada and weapons of mass destruction, Syria and weapons of mass destruction, Swedish nuclear weapon program, Nuclear program of Saudi Arabia, Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction, etc. Limongi (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a rescue tag on the article and changed the article's lead to reflect what the sources state. Limongi (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brazil is widely believed to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s and 1980s. NPguy (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (defective nom.) The nomination text belongs on the article's talk page. The nomination fails to cite a policy or guideline which the article does not conform to. There are third-party sources cited in the article significantly covering the topic. Discussion of capabilities, intent, evidence etc. are editorial concerns, not Afd issues. patsw (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Brazil and nuclear weapons, or Brazil's nuclear development since it includes things other than just the weapons, such as nuclear powered submarines. Is there a clear definition for what a weapon of mass destruction is, and what that term is limited to? The article is about nuclear things only, not doomsday viruses, mass produced poison gas, mass drivers, or various high tech super weapons. Showing the nuclear development in a country is quite fitting for an encyclopedia to do. Dream Focus 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We have a similar article on each country which has or has had a WMD program; see South Africa and weapons of mass destruction despite their now 20-year-old complete dismantlement and abandonment of their nuclear bombs program. That Brazil aren't pursuing anything now doesn't mean they were not, as the article clearly states. We document historical fact as well as current status. This is very well documented in the nonproliferation research literature and admitted by Brazil's government. The nominator appears to be confusing having an article with an accusation of ongoing activity; that's not what the article's about at all. Also; the article name is standardized - X and weapons of mass destruction is consistent across the whole field, except where individual N, B, or C programs were big enough to justify independent articles, in which case the X and WMD article is a short summary page pointing to the more specific main ones. Brazil's article is normal and consistent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to Alex - You fundamentally misunderstand the criteria for having an X-and-wmd article. Having had a program pursuing WMD qualifies for one, whether one developed them and deployed them or not. Syria has a nuclear weapons program section in its WMD article, and there's a Sweden and WMD article for their 1940s-60s (now long abandoned) nuclear bomb program, which is well documented. Japan, Burma, Argentina, ... Look at the Countries and WMD template box you removed Brazil from earlier, look at all the articles here. This is in no sense picking on or making Brazil look bad. It's documenting known and documented reality. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brazil had a WMD program so an article on this topic is justified. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not to simply parrot the above rationales, I will say that Brazil having had a successful program specifically for nukes is as relevant as having actually produced any, which they did not. There is also relevance to Argentina–Brazil relations in the arms race between the two (the notability for this article and Argentina and weapons of mass destruction are about the same). bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above. Alex, you should also take a look at the article Mexico and other boosterism attempts like this. Felipe Menegaz 16:05, 7 October 2010 (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.