Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Central-American Crisis (magazine article)

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. W.marsh 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Central-American Crisis (magazine article)[edit]

Blatant WP:OR violation. Hemlock Martinis 08:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As nom.Alberon 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator requests keep. First of all, thankyou User:Hemlock Martinis for alerting me to this debate. I was surprised to hear that the article is being considered for deletion on “original research” grounds because I didn’t feel I had done anything more than report on information from widely available sources. Perhaps my use of the phrase “as far as the present writer is aware” is causing the concern, but if so I think the issue is more stylistic than substantive. Maybe it will be useful if I add that the source which I cited in the article on the early usage of “neocolonialism” reads as follows:

The first recorded use of the term was in reference to French policy in Algeria in 1959 (although the word had been used earlier in the context of art history), and in 1961 the term became more widely used: in relation to Indonesia and Malaysia, the Pacific, and US policy in the Carribbean and Latin America; the word was used in the New Statesman in January 1961 and in the New Left Review by Perry Anderson and Stuart Hall in July 1961. . . .

Please tell me more precisely where in the article you consider the problem to be and I will try to address your concerns. La la ooh 20:37, 09 November 2007

Delete: We don't do reviews of magazine articles (unless they're of proven notability, I suppose). Some of this information might best go into some article on neo-colonialism. Or references should be provided showing that multiple, independent sources have substantial coverage of this article.Noroton 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do reviews of magazine articles. See Category:Magazine articles for a list (which may not be exhaustive). I looked at ten of them, not knowing beforehand what any of them were about. Five did not cite any references indicating that they were notable. One, "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved", cited two sources which contradicted each other on the article's notability (one said it was the first instance of Gonzo journalism; the other said different article was). The other four gave references which established notability.

I might mention that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy. The fact that editors have not seen fit to delete most of the articles I mention above indicates that a de facto consensus exists that multiple references to sources establishing notability are not required. I have one source directly indicating notability. I can cite others that will tend to support it, although they are not direct. -- La la ooh 1:52, 12 November 2007

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.