Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands Off Venezuela

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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Off Venezuela[edit]

Delete -- the article is 100% original research, with no citation to WP:V sources. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, among others. Morton Devonshire^Yo
KEEP - I have been a member of the Hands Off Venezuela since it’s inception in 2002, and attend the weekly London meetings regularly. The article is thorough and accurate. The broad-based campaign has been very effective in it’s aims, providing accurate information regarding the social movements in Venezuela, and has been successful in building solidarity here in Britain through trade unions, universities and left wing organisations.--Mary1917 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The article should be kept. It was useful for me and have since found out about the good work they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.195.195.11 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:OR and WP:NOT Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom WP:V, well lack of sources all together, WP:OR --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of notability. Delete per nom and others. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & cleanup This organisation is real. It has several thousand members in the UK, including several members of parliament, including John McDonnell, MP, has been mentioned in parliament (EDM 487) and has been recognised by the President of Venezuela [1]. It is real and notable. However, the page does need to be better written and better wikified. I will try to find some time to do this soon. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:NPOV and is original research. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV perhaps, but that is cured by improving the article, not deleting it. It is not Original Research, however. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Early Day Motion cited by Seabhcan at least validates the existence of the organisation. I'd like to see more verified third-party sources of information about the group, but I think it's worth keeping it around on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep pending cleanup. Pretty much all WP:OR and most WP:NPOV issues are related to Venezuela itself as opposed to the group itself, and can just be removed from the article. If verified third-party sources can corroborate the organization's claims (three and a half years of activity, notable members and leaders, supporters in 30 countries), it would easily pass WP:ORG. It needs to be cleaned up (and SDS has volunteered!), but a decent article should be possible. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Contrib 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've deleted most of the OR and NPOV stuff, and added an {unreliable} tag. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Contrib 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfred asked for third party sources. Here are some: (GuardianUK) Indepenent) (paysite); London Mayor Ken Livingstone supports HOV (Vcrisis - anti-chavez site) (VenezuelaAnalysis) .

Some of the links David Schaich asked for: International membership: (US) (Australia) (Canada)

Other stuff: [www.cafepress.com/handsoffvenez (Cafepress)] (flickr) (PoliticalAffairs.Net) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Seabhcan. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a significant pressure group in the UK, and recent edits to the article have made it NPOV. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after edits by David Schaich, this now meets WP:ORG guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article was in fact full of POV, but the group is notable.--Jersey Devil 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ive seen it on a t-shirt --Musaabdulrashid 12:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now largly rewritten it. Hopefully all POV problems are gone. It still needs a critism section - but first I need to find sources. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:43, 27 July 2006 (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.