Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Hugo Chávez (3rd nomination)

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hugo Chávez[edit]

This was always basically a WP:FORK of Hugo Chávez. With useful content increasingly moved to the appropriate articles, what's left has no purpose beyond attracting WP:COATRACKery. It remains irredeemably a WP:FORK. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think you mean WP:POVFORK. The WP:FORK you link to is something different. --maclean 23:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. Thanks. Disembrangler (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has been an effort to incorporate specific criticisms into respective articles. Anything of value which remains can be merged. Dynablaster (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article contains relevant information properly sourced, about Hugo Chavez stance on human, civil and political rights. Besides, editors sympathetic to Chavez make impossible for criticism to stand in Hugo Chavez's main entry.Alekboyd (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all useful info with main article Hugo Chávez (that has not already been spun off to other locations and linked from the main article), then delete (or redirect if the main article has a specific criticism section that this page could redirect to). Awickert (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has always been a POV magnet, any useful content can be merged into daughter articles like Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez government, Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government, etc (if not already there). Most relevant material could be merged into the main Hugo Chávez article but I would not suggest a redirect to the main article as Awickert alternatively proposes, I think the redirect would still be a POV magnet. JRSP (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I was waffling on the redirect idea for that very reason, and do not hold that suggestion strongly. As long as any good info is pulled out and put where it should go, deletion is fine by me. Awickert (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteInappropriate fork. The extremely unbalanced presentation of the material shows its purpose to be a POV fork, not an expansion. What else can we think about an article that contains unreferenced sections such as this, copied in full:

During the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004, Súmate and other political opponents made unproven allegations against Chavez of electoral fraud.

There is no attempt in the entire article to find positive comment to balance the negative, or to cite statements in his defense. I would usually say that an article of the sort can be improved by balancing, but the malice of this article is self-evident, and the group of main articles on the subject provide opportunity for a full statement of positive and negative comment. If there is difficulty inserting negative criticism, the proper course is to pursue Dispute Resolution DGG (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a closing admin might also skim Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez/Archive 1, where repeated suggestions have been made that the article is an attack page, and should be deleted. (And those comments were made before the merging of content to other articles.) Overall, deleting the article can only be an improvement, in removing the remaining duplication (mostly of Economy of Venezuela at the moment I think; but it's a structural problem), and in forcing actual criticisms (as opposed to WP:COATRACKery) to be integrated into the relevant topic articles, where it belongs and will actually be of use to readers. A Criticism article like this satisfies some editors' need to have an obvious outlet for criticism, but is not in the best interests of the readers. (And ultimately, in terms of forcing editors to place valid criticisms in a proper context where readers will actually read it, as opposed to tucking it away in an obviously biased collection of Stuff That Makes The Subject Look Bad, deletion is in the interest of those editors too.) Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it would not be necessary to have such an article if regular editors sympathetic of Hugo Chavez & related pages were not so adamant in allowing criticism to be included in entries. I invite editors commenting in this page to just have a look at the histories of those articles: any criticism is systematically deleted. In fact the entries read as propaganda for Chavez. In this respect Wikipedia is hopelessly biased and this is an issue that goes beyond mere deleting/keeping/merging an article.Alekboyd (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you don't get to call Chavez a terrorist doesn't mean Wikipedia is biased. Disembrangler (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I get to call the president of my country whatever I want whenever I want wherever I want; it's called freedom of expression, and yes, as far as articles related to Hugo Chavez in Wikipedia are concerned, this encyclopedia is beyond the pale in terms of bias. Any attempt to introduce correctly-sourced criticism is summarily dismissed by editors with obscure identities and questionable motives, who can't tell the difference between a functioning democracy and a post-modern dictatorship. You can have your revisionist history printed here no doubt, you can paint a putschist, a man that supports terrorism as Mother Teresa all you like, but there's a world out there, full of people with discerning minds.Alekboyd (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This contains much WP:COATRACKery of a living person. Pieces like (from the "Economic policy" subsection):

"At the same time, The Economist opines that the administration's unwillingness to use private sector resources has resulted in a crumbling public infrastructure and a deficit in housing.[51] Critics cite the many public hospitals that lack basic medicine and hygienic supplies."

may have a place in Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government, but in Criticism of Hugo Chávez it is just WP:COATRACKery. "Criticism of ..." articles concerning people (BLPs, like Bill O'Reilly or Noam Chomsky or Vladimir Putin) should be aggressively kept in check and deleted (or stubbed) if they cannot be. --maclean 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is also a good example of a point I made above: in the Criticism article, this is just WP:COATRACKery. In Health care in Venezuela, it would be a start for something that might end up useful (eg it might lead to more up-to-date statistics, etc). It's just better to have these things in topic articles than in Criticism. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question related to this: how much has already been forked out, and how much hasn't? If material hasn't been moved to appropriate pages, then I think that either the material should be sandboxed for post-deletion positioning or that the deletion should be postponed until the material is moved. That way, we won't lose useful nuggets (like that above) for other articles. Awickert (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dont like the guy one bit, but this is a clear WP:POVFORK. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Public image of Hugo Chavez", along the lines of numerous other politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, and add the relevant balancing material from the main article. 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea to have such an article (Public image of Hugo Chávez), but there is a big danger of ending up with much the same problems as for Criticism, and I think it would probably be better to write it from scratch in order to reduce the risk of that. A few bits from Criticism may be usable, but much of it is Stuff About Venezuela duplicated from elsewhere, and a substantial merge would increase the likelihood of the new article being pretty similar to the old Criticism, just slightly reworded. Also we already have Media representation of Hugo Chávez, which might be mergeable or even renameable for that topic. But yes, if the article is kept, such a renaming and consequent refocussing is definitely a good idea. Disembrangler (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a WP:COATRACK and often pushes the limits of scope when there's no need. I see no problems with a Public Image page (a renamed media representation) but I think just adding to that and the other relevant articles, rather than a merge, is a better idea. RutgerH (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2009 (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.