Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaucho Rivero

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 keep. Consensus is clearly keep, on the reasonable and policy-based argument that whether the article is NPOV is not a basis for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaucho Rivero

[edit]
Gaucho Rivero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a complete work of fiction bearing no relation to the historical facts surrounding this individual. Subject is not notable, other than to a very narrow section of Argentine nationalism that have built extensive myths about the man. The facts of the matter are discussed in detail on other articles and this is a content fork. Addendum To add were there anything worth salvaging in the article I would have rewritten it, there isn't anything of note whatsoever. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This particular fiction has long been exposed in Argentina too. Here is what Admiral Laurio H. Destefani says in his 1982 book, after narrating the murders of innocent Vernet settlers committed by Rivero and his accomplices: “This is the true story of what happened proof of which is stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History. Attempts have been made to create a legend about courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination. The truth as recorded in those documents does not authorize the creation of myths or legends.” (Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982. pp. 91-92.) Apcbg (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom (embarassingly I forgot to endorse my own nomination. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (If you nominate it, you do not also need to add a "delete" !vote, so I struck it.)Edison (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Regadless of support or rejection for his actions, someone that leads a riot that leaves a political district in anarchy is clearly notable to deserve his own article. In fact, he is, and not just within Argentina: I just checked english google books for "Antonio Rivero" (his real name) and the name given in english to the islands, and found many books as results, and from titles and quoted texts all of them seem to be about this Antonio Rivero (not someone else with the same name). Of course, this is if we consider notability as an objetive rationale ("Is this topic talked about in reliable sources?") and not a subjetive one ("How much importance can we give to this topic?").
As for the content, there are indeed historical controversies about him (for example, the flag incident), but those are included as facts or discussed in many other reliable books as well. The way to preceed then is to adress the controversy and point the conflicting viewpoints, not to determine one to be "true" and disregard the other. Remember that content inclusion criteria is Verifiability, not truth, and even if we write about history we can't act as historians ourselves, as to judge the validity of claims. This is a short article, and it wouldn't take much work to fix it.
By the way, to portrait this article as a "work of fiction" is highly loaded: nobody denies that the riot took place, or that this person existed. Even more, if some sources raise him to the level of a heroe, that's even more reason to expect notability MBelgrano (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comments for deletion are that this was a content fork and its adequately covered elsewhere. The article itself is devoid of merit and is an utter work of fiction that bears no relation to historic facts. At most what is "notable" about him would merit a few lines in an article and it can be adequately covered there. Per WP:FRINGE we give WP:DUE coverage, this article contravenes those guidelines. In addition, removing talk page notices alerting interested editors to this discussion is unhelpful. See WP:TPG. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am upholding my 'delete' vote; as a matter of fact I did hesitate about recommending that the article be rewritten but decided not to, as it would mean writing an entirelly new article from scratch. The present text is quite unusable. Apcbg (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is an article in The Historical Journal, 27, 4 (1984), pp 961 - 967 entitled The case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands by Richard Ware of the House of Commons library. Page 1 of the article is available here. Until somebody can rewrite the existing Wikipedia article using reputable sources, I suggest that it be flagged as being "non-neutral" and once it has been rewritten, that it be wiki-linked into other articles. A properly written, neutral article, citing reputable sources will often be a much better challenge to unsubstantiated folk-lore than ignoring such folk-lore. Martinvl (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It merits about 2 lines on History of the Falkland Islands. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. "History of..." articles are overviews that must stay focused in the bigger picture, without going into too much detail about the countless topics that take part in it, as such details can be detailed at specific articles. "History of X" is specific only for "X", for other subtopics it is not. MBelgrano (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats about all the subject requires, he is notable solely for murdering the 5 senior members of Vernet's settlement in a robbery nothing more. Otherwise its a content fork. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect what exactly? Do you suggest merging the present text "into one of the Falkland pages"? Apcbg (talk)
Anything of note. If it is already covered, just delete but worth noting that the chap is at least notable of mention if possible, or rather the incident of his fame is. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing of merit worth keeping in the current article, otherwise that is exactly what I would have done. The subject is already covered with more than adequately already. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New version Here I have made a complete rewrite of the article, including a section on the different views over Rivero across Argentine historiography (which, by the way, isn't considered a heroe by all historians), and, as I were at it, a "in ppopular culture" section, which are always so "popular". I think this adress the main concerns here. It is notable, it can't be otherwise if so many historians have something different to say about him (notice that "notable" does not mean "hero", nowhere it is written that subjects must have "positive" notability). The article also provides now specific information about this particular case, which wouldn't fit at the "History of... " article, so it shouldn't be merged either. Notice as well that there is a single link at the references, but that's because there's a historian citing viewpoints of other historians, which helps to prevent giving any of them an undue weight (which may be suspected if I cite them directly).

However, we may discuss if the article should be about Antonio Rivero, the man, or about the uprising, the event. As pointed, his notability comes from this event and only from this event; an event that hasn't its own article yet. But the article would be basically the same, so it would be a discuss about a page move.

As the new version is so different than the one that motivated this AFD, I request the users that have participated so far to check the new article and reconsider or confirm again their idea. MBelgrano (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the new version, and it's still mostly OR and horrendously POV. But more to the point, it's still a coatrack article. We have an individual here whose "notability" derives solely from a single event, and so the article is always going to be essentially about that event, not about the individual. My position (merge any useful content and redirect) stands. Pfainuk talk 16:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in which part of the "History off..." artcle would you describe the different historical viewpoints about Rivero's actions, without going off topic from the global perspective that such an article must have? You may better consider my alternative proposal: rename the article, so that it's about the event itself. The event is notable, no overview of the history of the islands, from either side, leaves it outside MBelgrano (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose we merge to History of the Falkland Islands. If consensus here is for a move, I'll go with it. But it sounds to me like we are agreed that the individual himself is not notable and that we do not need an article on him as an individual. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment While one appreciates your good faith effort, the present version is as unrescuable as the original one I am afraid. If it stays, then it will probably get ridden of sentence after sentence due to the lack of reliable secondary sources — until only the factual narrative of the Port Louis murders remains, together with a 'fiction' section (of course duly sourced with reliable secondary sources confirming that the content of that section is fiction indeed). Therefore, I would rather stick to my delete vote. Apcbg (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have taken the liberty of putting in all of the links given by other users here. I'm going to rewrite the article if no one minds. Might take me a while though. (Less than a day, but still) SilverserenC 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the new article is as lot better than the original - it is essentially neutral and factual in its approach. Although it describes an event which in itself is no longer notable, the political ramifications are notable and are of importance today and this article could go some way to countering pure propaganda. Martinvl (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. The British takeover of 1833, yes, but the murders have little enduring effect on the modern dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the murders themselves have little effect, I stand by my original viewpoint that this article is a lot closer to the truth than the original one and as such will counter pure propaganda that might be put out by certain nationaist elements. Martinvl (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, there is little improvement with the newer version, though I must express my gratitude for the work in adding sources. Turned up some references I've been looking for some time. I still say delete simply because there is little of any merit whatsoever. The Port Louis Murders and the myth making may make for an article, a biography of the individual no. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, create a new article The Port Louis Murders of 1833 and redirect the article on Gaucho Rivero to the new article. One could of course include Rivero's biographical details in the article. In this way we will probably get the best of both worlds. Until the new article is ready however, keep the current article. Martinvl (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best of what exactly? If I understand you correctly, you consider it better to retain "stuff", while we wait for a new article? Give me a break. There is nothing here to salvage, delete it and write a new article. This article doesn't even conform to basic wiki biography standards. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While we must make sure to avoid being influenced by Argentine nationalism, we must avoid as well the British one. The historiographical policy of British sources to back their claim on the islands is to state that the islands were no man's land until the occupation of 1833, that there was no violence involved, and that the islands have been a steady posesion of the British empire since then. The existence of this gaucho and/or this event is somewhat an obstacle in such approach, so the British point of view is to downgrade his actions as mere criminal or savage, as if it was "just another" crime, as if it had no real importance in the everyday life of the islands beyond a mere news event. This deletion proposal is clearly in line with such approach. The attitude of Justin and Pfainuk so far was being so disdanful, resorting to general claims (like "it's all OR and POV", "there's nothing to salvage"), labeling the historical disputed information as "fiction" (which implies that they follow a defined POV about what is true and what is false, instead of aiming to equally describe the conflicting viewpoints, which exist and are listed), being openly rude with things such as "seems the sily season is upon us" or "this heap of nonsense" (and explicitily refusing to reformulate such comments when civility was requested), and posting a notice about this deletion request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group but not at Wikiproject Argentina (which constitutes canvassing, which I also warned him to fix by telling at both places, and didn't do), etc. With such an approach, it's hard to consider that they are actually being fair and dissapasionated when considering this article. MBelgrano (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If something is not supported by reliable sources then it is nothing but OR indeed. One cannot avoid the facts in this case, and the basic unavoidable fact is that both the 'heroic' murderers and their innocent victims were the employees of an Argentine company, Vernet's enterprise. By the way, Vernet was lucky in not being on the Falklands at that time, or he might well have been wasted too in the process of “uprising against the British occupation” :-) Apcbg (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The naked personal and ad hominem attack above is exactly why this article needs to be deleted. The article is obscenely POV, an example of the worst kind of WP:OR, nationalist myth making and historical revisionism. By wikipedia standards its utterly indefensible and so we see a resort to personal abuse to defend it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apcgb's comment seems a clear example: opinions on this article are being mixed with opinions about Antonio Rivero himself. And yes, there are diverse historical opinions about this man, some consider him a hero and others a criminal. In line with NPOV, it is described that way. It is not our task to decide wich historiographical line is "correct", Wikipedia relies on Verifiability, not truth. OR does not apply to authors whose ideas you don't agree with. MBelgrano (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are different opinions on virtually everything, which does not mean all opinions are with equal standing. There are those supported by reliable secondary sources based on verifiable primary ones, and there are opinions refuted by such sources. See Admiral Destefani's sourced opinion above and the more detailed analysis in his book. Apcbg (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical primary sources, such as documents, are not ultimate truths. They may contain mistakes, bias, even lies. Historians do not repeat what such sources say, they study the accuracy or inaccury of such sources and explain the results. In this case, some historians choose to take the british documents as true, and others to consider that, given the context, they may be biased. MBelgrano (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that’s why I’m talking of reliable secondary sources. But you know the history credo: “No documents — No history”. When ‘historians’ put forward theses based on no documental evidence that’s fiction not history. Apcbg (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biased documents do not need to be completely rejected either: the task of the historian is to keep the factual information, while removing the bias or lies that may be included in it, or turning things told as statements of fact as "X stated that...", "Y believed that...", etc. MBelgrano (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, but we ought to be concrete here rather than speak of 'documents' and 'historians' in general. Texts in Wikipedia articles should meet certain standards that we all very well know. That's where the present version of this particular article miserably fails, and should better go for good I'm afraid. Apcbg (talk) 15:30, 30 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaucho_Rivero&oldid=1069479942"