Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivarian propaganda

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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the request by the nominator to close the debate in favor of keeping the article. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian propaganda[edit]

Bolivarian propaganda (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)

This article is in conflict with WP:IRS, WP:NPOV it uses a few POV sources many times and is written from a single POV. Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC) I'd like to request this be closed as keep. The article isn't remotely the same as when i nominated it for AfD.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. But I'm in there cleaning up now, so we can see if there is anything salvageable. I'll enter a declaration after I've gotten it to a readable state, but that an article should exist on Bolivarian propaganda is highly likely, even if the article is misnamed, and the number of sources alone (and the speed with which you put up this AFD) indicates that it's unlikely you've done a thorough analysis. I'm looking, but will look after I've cleaned up the new article mess. If you're in such a hurry for deletion, I suggest someone start checking for copyvio, while I work on cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the propaganda put out by Chavez is not the same as Chavismo, which is the political ideology. I've consolidated the citations so that we can begin to see what's there, but I haven't had time to go further. Some may be opeds (like Kraft), that need to be evaluated for reliability and opinions may need attribution, but I'm not yet clearly in Keep or Delete or Merge territory-- need to spend more time looking at the article, and have only done citation cleanup so far. Some of the Kraft opinion, for example, is citable to hard news sources. Whether this is the propaganda article, there is one that can be written and can meet notability. Whether the article is neutral, contains original research, or is poorly written isn't what we look at at AFD-- we need to look at notability. I don't have access to the books cited; I think my declaration will hinge on those, if anyone can access them, but there are certainly reliable mentions of Chavez's extensive propaganda machine, which is real-- not sure we yet have them in this article, which needs a whole TON of work. I'll look in more later, hopefully someone can access the books. For example, Linebarger is a book about Psychological Warfare: does it even mention Chavez, or do we have original research here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification (I did say "might" since I wasn't sure). Cheers!, Shearonink (talk)
  • I've done a lot of preliminary cleanup, much more to do. There is likely still original research, cleanup needs, and POV, but I don't have access to the book sources. Three opinion pieces are cited, but everything from those pieces could be cited to reliable sources. There are multiple reliable sources discussing propaganda in Venezuela, but without access to the book sources, it will be hard for me to continue repairing the article. Notability is met, there's probably enough material to write the article correctly, which I can't do without the books. "Bolivarian propaganda" is a poor search term; searching on Chavez Propaganda or Venezuela Propaganda returns reliable sources (some behind paywall)-- a few samples: Christian Science Monitor, The Yale Globalist, [1] [2] Propaganda in Venezuela under Chavez should be notable; whether this article makes it is hard to say without having the books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schoen has a google books preview, and propaganda is covered in multiple sections of the book. I haven't verified text in the article. Some snippets from McCaughan are available on google books; its bias is pro-Chavez, so obtaining the book may be a way to balance neutrality in the article. Another book that discusses Chavez propaganda, but hasn't been used in the article, is the anti-Chavez Silence and the Scorpion. A journal article that is behind a paywall, entitled "Media Crackdown: Chavez and Censorship," has a google excerpt saying "State-run television channels Veneciana de Televisión and ViVe remain abject propaganda services for the Chavez government, regularly attacking the president's designated enemies and opposition figures in news reports while excluding dissenting opinions". Not in the article, I don't have journal access. Jennifer McCoy's book, The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela has an excerpt available on google books saying, "President Chavez's propaganda in this regard misleads". Christina Marcano's book, Hugo Chavez has excerpts on google books that say: "This surprising finding contradicts not only Chavez's propaganda, but ... " and "The state-run media, on the other hand, have become veritable propaganda brigades that seem willing to stop at nothing in their defense of the president". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added a "See also"/Wikilink for one of the two root terms in the article's title: Bolivarian since the term itself was not explained within the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry to be the devil's advocate today. This article does looks like one of those famous CIA sponsored articles, but neither points in the Afd had been demonstrated. We should be enforcing policy, not censoring Wikipedia.

  • WP:NPOV this claim has not been demonstrated - the article is very well sourced so I would suggest that the nominator point out some that might be challenged? Until this happens this is not a ground for deletion only for censorship , though a warning notice should be left to warn readers that there may be a POV issue.
  • WP:IRS - this has not been demonstrated either, and if some sources are WP:RS then it is not grounds for deletion. Again tagging problematic citation might lead to some progress.
  • I will reconsider my vote if some real evidence makes an appearance. BO; talk 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though the initial form was somewhat rough, I think it is fairly evident at this point that the subject is notable. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: There are two more versions of this article in AfC space, please refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bolivarian propaganda which 24.218.131.154 Declined here and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Bolivarian propaganda.
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/Bolivarian_propaganda&oldid=1078783505"