Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Guayana Esequiba

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. Sandstein 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Guayana Esequiba

[edit]

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

COVID-19 pandemic in Guayana Esequiba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Guayana Esequiba is a disputed territory which exists only on paper. All the cases here are already covered by the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article; this article just copied and pasted sections of that article. Sladnick (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The territory is disputed, but is neither de facto or de jure independent. It has no form of autonomy whatsoever. There is no independent coverage of the COVID-19 cases. The total number of infected person in the region is not known, because Guyana does not provide an up to date administration of regions. All we have is an outdated report and a link to a dashboard which is not online anymore, and will probably never return. KittenKlub (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is clearly POV pushing by creating an article to represent an area someone wants to have status instead of dealing with actual status on the ground.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has its encyclopedic reference. Guayana Esequiba is an area in demand by both Guyana and Venezuela. Although the cases are given by the government of Guyana (link1), the area in question is attached to the report maps the daily notifications of COVID-19 from Venezuela (link 2).--MusicologoVzla (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MusicologoVzla (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    • CommentThere is no indication that the Venezuelan count includes information about the region. In fact there is no count when you hoover over the disputed area unlike all the other areas.KittenKlub (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MuscologoVzla's references. --Micky (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no real reason for this article to exist separately from the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article; for all intents and purposes, the region is a part of Guyana regardless of Venezuelan claims and the status of the article should reflect that. There is useful information here, and that should be incorporated into the Guyana article. There are no actual references on the pandemic in Guayana Esequiba, all of the references are simply concerning the pandemic in Guyana with this region as a part of Guyana, and therefore should be merged into that article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary I still think that the article should be left separately from Guyana Esequiba, it is more in each of the articles on coronaviruses from both Guyana and Venezuela, mention is made of this area in claim. It must be remembered that this territory, until it is discussed in the International Court of Justice, does not belong to one or the other, even if Guyana "administers" it. Incidentally, that discussion was to take place in March 2020, but due to the pandemic, it was suspended until further notice. (link).--MusicologoVzla (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary The region is the most administered Guyana, however, it does not belong to any country until its territorial dispute is resolved. In fact, the maps of Venezuela include it. Don't confuse things.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary That is why there are articles about the territorial dispute. But this is a topic dealing exclusively with the actual administration of the region today. Sladnick (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary There are articles like COVID-19 pandemic in New York, so this article also has encyclical relevance.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hate to break it to ya, but New York actually exists. Guayana Esequiba, as a separate entity from Guayana, does not. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary You are wrong, Guayana Esequiba exists in the administration of Venezuela (link and official map photo), that this zone is divided by zones and regions by Guyana is something else. Remember that said territory in claim, is still in dispute until a decision by the International Court is evaluated.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guyana does not exist in the administration of Venezuela. It exists on some maps, but Venezuela most certainly does not administer it. Furthermore, the ICJ doesn't really concern us; what concerns is that while Venezuela may claim it, in reality Guyana fully controls the territory. -Zoozaz1 (talk)03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect to the Guyana article, I don't care). It makes sense to have articles for the pandemic as it affects functioning subdivisions of countries that have their own statistics and pandemic responses (COVID-19 pandemic in California, COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei), and to have articles for unrecognized entities that are actually in control of territory (like COVID-19 pandemic in the Donetsk People's Republic). Guayana Essequiba isn't like any of these. Regardless of the legal merits of Venezuela's claim, Venezuela does not control this territory, and the borders of "Guayana Essequiba" have no direct relevance to the people living in Guyana or to their response to the pandemic. Ucucha (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep other articles on the pandemic exist that handle regions, cities or states of other countries. Additionally this region is subject to an International Court of Justice hearing that is was affected by the pandemic. We are not to decide which country this region belongs to.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Guyana article, per Zoozaz1 and Ucucha above. As far as I can see, both countries administer pandemic affairs centrally, and not by state or region. The ICJ might well rule on the matter at some point, and Guyana might well hand control of the region to Venezuela, and the central government of Venezuela might well cede control over pandemic affairs to its constituent states, but until all of that happens, we only split country articles on COVID-19 to state or territory articles based on actual governance. We have more than enough material for a separate article on London, but unlike cities such as New York, London doesn't independently maintain statistics or conduct its own health care policy, so the same principle would apply there. Capewearer (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Territory is disputed, thus creating a stand alone article over coronavirus in this territory sounds violation of NPOV and POVFORK. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just to understand why are some many people encouraging its deletion, if the page was about the Guyanan state Barima-Waini it would not be a problem? But because it is about a conflicting territory we should delete it? We have several pages of islands, cities and sub-neighbours, but a well-known disputed territory is no-go? --ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is it different from COVID-19 pandemic in Western Sahara or COVID-19 pandemic in Sevastopol?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Western Sahara is administered by two separate entities (Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic); that article discusses both zones. Sevastopol is administered by Russia, even though it is claimed by Ukraine, and the pandemic article discusses the Russian administration there; there is no separate article for "COVID-19 pandemic in Ukrainian Sevastopol" since Ukraine does not control it – for just such a reason people are saying we do not need an article for Covid-19 in Guayana Esequiba because Venezuela does not control it. Sladnick (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point, for example Sevastopol is de facto and de jure Russian, administered by Russia and it is included in Russian epidemic reports. Ukraine claims it. What's the difference with Guayana Esequiba, Guyana and Venezuela?--ReyHahn (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Guayana Esequiba is not included in Guyanan epidemic reports as a region. Seperate regions within this area of land are included, but because there is no health administration or for that matter administration at all that covers just the area of Guayana Esequiba there is no need for an article about it. There is, on the other hand, an active health administation in Sevastopol regardless of Ukrainian or Russian claims. The fundamental difference is that Guayana Esequiba, for all intents and purposes, is simply a line on a map; Sevastapol is a city with an extensive administrative apparatus. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for going on, but I am really trying to get that last part. Just because Guyana calls the region differently and controls it does not mean that the region is not disputed. The region may be subdivided in different administrations, but not because of that we are going to say it is irrelevant. If tomorrow Sevastopol is broken into six it does not make the article less relevant. I guess we can discuss how much coverage or health activity is the region having but arguing it is an "only on paper" territory is just evasive.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The illogical thing is that some are against this article, but in favor of articles of the pandemic in New York. So?.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no COVID-19 articles for historic administrative divisions that no longer exist. Guayana Esequiba is an administrative division which never existed. Sladnick (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we continue that Guayana Esequiba does not exist? So we Venezuelans will all be wrong and what they taught us in geography classes for years is wrong, according to your perspective. A little more consistency. Guayana Esequiba is part of the Venezuelan territory, in all the national maps and part of the country's history. That Guyana has divided part of that territory into its regions does not mean that it is really theirs. So the dispute. I invite you to before you comment on something you do not know, analyze, study and see further. Some links, but they are in Spanish: Link 1 link 2.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A COVID-19 article is first about administration. Barima-Waini has no seperate administration or health care, so no that one will not qualify either. New York does. (And London does not as mentioned above) And yes, Saba, St.Barth and the Falklands (disputed as well) have the population of a small village and have their own articles, because they are solely reponsible for the healthcare, registration, administration and management of the pandemic, and the country to which they belong only helps out. Autonomy is a second reason, and once again Esequiba has no autonomy whatsoever. Don't think that I have no sympathy, because the village of Kasuela is also disputed with Guyana, however an Amerindian village with 80 people and no connection to the World Wide Web will never qualify for its own article.KittenKlub (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's see dear Wikipedists, we are falling into a dilemma. The area is historically called Guayana Esequiba and has belonged to Venezuela. That now Guyana has wanted to arbitrarily rename it despite the fact that the matter has not been resolved in the International Court, does not mean that there is no jurisdiction in Venezuela. Don't confuse things. For now it is not from Venezuela, nor is it from Guyana. Therefore I go back and repeat it, the article is relevant because both countries are showing COVID-19 cases for that region.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree; there is no dilemma. Venezuela has no jurisdiction in this region whatsoever; this is just some territory in Guyana that Venezuela claims. If the territory had its own health department and was administrated as a sub-national entity, then fine, there should be an article. All this land is, however, and the only thing the sources that you provide show, is simply some Venezuelan-drawn lines on a map. (as a side note, as the map on this page clearly shows, Venezuela doesn't actually report cases for Guayana Esequiba.) Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invite you to study the issue of Guayana Esequiba, which goes beyond "drawn lines" as you say. Historically it is Venezuelan territory and it is a process that has been in dispute for years and a final agreement has not been reached on that territory invaded by the United Kingdom at the time and then Guyana when said republic was created. In fact, the National Assembly of Venezuela was going to place jurisdiction there and they are in such procedures.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a little-noted intersection of two separate issues, the territorial dispute and the ongoing pandemic. The only reliably sourced interaction is that the pandemic has disrupted effort to address the dispute. The pandemic has disrupted nearly everything else in the world. At the moment, that's a transient glitch that barely rates a mention an Wikipedia's coverage about the territorial dispute. Reliable sources do not support carving out the COVID-19 response in Guayana Esequiba from the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article. Venezuela's claim on the territory does not show a real world effect on the COVID-19 response to justify a stand-alone article or even a section in an existing article. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2020 (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/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Guayana_Esequiba&oldid=964678334"