Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. intervention in Venezuela

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 but begin merge discussion. From reading the discussion it seems like deletion is not favoured although the article appears to have some noteworthy POV and content problems. The merge-or-not discussion is a bit tougher as it looks like it comes down to the reliability of certain sources; the main concern stated by SandyGeorgia appears to be that the stuff that can reliably be sourced is already present elsewhere )and per WP:ATD-M that is certainly a valid reason for a merge) and that the current article is a POV fork. The key counterarguments are by Sakiv (which isn't really policy-based), Dream Focus (a little vague as well), Ali Ahwazi and Mhhossein that there is enough information on this subtopic to make a dedicated article. In my assessment, there is no clear consensus here in favour of a particular action and that the merge-or-not discussion (as also stated by some participants) should be held, with a more in-depth discussion of the POVFORK problem which has been left kind of unaddressed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. intervention in Venezuela[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

U.S. intervention in Venezuela (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)

Article violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL, and it currently have reliability and accuracy issues. Like it has happened before with edits on the topic, the article is most likely a result on recentism and the current perspective of the news. I encourage the ongoing merge proposal. Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator Jamez42: If you support the merge proposal, then why are you proposing deletion at AfD? By nominating the article after the merge proposal was opened, it makes it look like an attempt to close an editing dispute with AfD, which is a criterion for Speedy Keep. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: I may not be familiarized, but it is my understanding that in a AfD discussions for redirects and merges also take place, while also considering the deletion. If this is not the case, I am confusing the procedures with that of the Spanish Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: Those are possible outcomes of an AfD discussion, but in English Wikipedia you can do (non-history-deleting) redirects and merges using other consensus processes. You nominate at AfD if you want to delete the article (including delete-and-redirect). Whether or not it is your intent, it looks like you're trying to use AfD to bypass an already open consensus process on the article you're nominating. I encourage you to withdraw this nomination and let the merge proposal run its course. Bakazaka (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want and think the article should be deleted, but understood that said discussion could be continued here. After learning this, I indeed want to withdraw the nomination. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the mistake was mine. Yes, deletion is the better option, so perhaps removing my merge discussion is the better option at this messed-up point. Could someone who is not a DorkLikeMe please advise? Or just remove my merge proposal if that is the better option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NO feedback from the knowledgeable, so I removed my merge proposal, as AFD is the better venue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we carry out the AFD proposal, then I propose to Delete per Jamez42:WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:CRYSTAL, reliability and accuracy issues and recentism. --MaoGo (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a hot mess per all, and I agree we should delete it if the merge doesn't happen. John M Wolfson (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POV fork written almost entirely from biased sources, and that covers no reliably sourced content that isn't already covered in neutral, well sourced articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per points raised below by Mhhossein, it appears that my original inclination may have been correct, and this should be a merge. There is little reliably sourced content here to merge, but the page should Merge and redirect to either United States–Venezuela relations or United States involvement in regime change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly! I'm just puzzled by the arguments provided so far. POV, unrelaible sources and etc are not sufficient for deletion of such a notable topic. Well, the question is that if 'U.S. intervention in Venezuela' is deeply covered by reliable sources, or not. I think the answer is clear and one can see the Chavez-bush era in Venezuela history as the hottest point with US interfering in the Venezuela's affairs. Anyway' let's talk about sources, what we need to prove the notability of the subject in question:
There are still some more sources:
More and more sources maybe found if one puts more time on searching for the keywords related to the title and I suggest the article be rewritten by such sources. That said, other concerns raised by users, such as POV issues, should be discussed on the article talk page. --Mhhossein talk 13:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, your points come back to the confusion over whether this should have been at AFD or a merge discussion, and apparently both Jamez42 and I messed it up :) I started a merge discussion because there are reliable sources on the topic, it is a topic that is covered in other articles, this is a POV fork, and the full and balanced NPOV discussion should have stayed in the places where it already existed. On the other hand, what is here is not reliably sourced, so Jamez's thinking was AFD rather than merge (there's nothing to merge). I thought a merge proposal, and redirecting this to those already existing articles was the way to go. Seeing the confusion above, and not knowing what to do next ... I removed the merge proposal. Yes, there are reliable sources. But this is also a POV fork from existing content, lacking in reliably sourced text. This merge turned AFD is a mess, and I don't know what declaration to enter now.

Having said that, The Chavez Code is a highly biased source (read up on the author's relationship to Chavez and what scholars and others think of her work). You mention that the book is reviewed by Eva Golinger-- it is written by Eva Golinger. It is largely debunked by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that there are reliable sources then it's likely a notable topic. POV fork does not apply here, given the existing sources supporting the topic. Moreover, note that WP:BIASED but reliable sources can be used in the article. --Mhhossein talk 18:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mhhossein talk 13:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mainly since this is a WP:POVFORK of Crisis in Venezuela, somewhat WP:CRYSTALBALLy. Article also merits some WP:TNT for extensive use of Sputnik News, ISNA.IR, mashreghnews.ir, tabnak.ir, alalamtv.net, irna.ir - none of which pass the bar of a WP:RS. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is incoherent as it favours merger but merger can't be done if you delete the page – see WP:MAD. The putative target of the merger,United States–Venezuela relations, has its own problems including several cleanup tags and a recentist lead that only talks about the 21st century. No doubt there is much work to be done but deletion will not be helpful in this. Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Although I presume: the used sources can be reliable enough to support the article, I later added several other related sources to increase the credit of the references. Meanwhile, the subject of the article has sufficient notability to be created as an independent page --by using related reliable sources. Moreover, afterwards, I attempted to modify the article in a better balance. Beside, it is indeed a true/remarkable issue that Andrew D. mentioned that the page of United States–Venezuela relations includes its related problems, among tags of ... and so on. P.S., I think keeping this article independently can be more profitable (due to its notability) albeit by doing more related modification(s) on it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are sources to be found, but you didn't seem to find any of them. In fact, you premised that article's lead on an unattributed opinion piece. Merge is still a better option, as this topic has been and can be covered elsewhere. There's not much that can be salvaged here, and the article would need a complete rewrite from reliable sources; that work is much easier done at US-Ven relations article, that already has a better start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone through the article and replaced the unbalanced, poorly sourced content (which was pretty much all of it) with reliably sourced text from elsewhere. Again, all of this text is available in other articles, this article duplicates content covered elsewhere, and merge and redirect is still a better option; maintaining duplicate content, because an entirely biased article was created, is make-work. It is regrettable that the issue here was obscured via AFD rather than a merge discussion.

    Also, considering there are English-language sources, there is no reason for an article to be built entirely on biased Farsi sources; WP:NONENG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some thing is being ignored in your comments; That the materials on US intervention in Venezuela is available elsewhere, it does not mean there should not be an article on this subject. If the subject is notable, which the sources show is, it merits to have a stand alone article. --Mhhossein talk 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment I could go into detail of the reasons of why I cited the aforementioned policies, but I think it's better to discuss this if there's no consensus. This discussion has already taken place in the talk page of the US regime change article, what constitutes intervention or not, but the content borders on WP:FRINGE. At some points the article is speculative or has information presented in a mistaken light. As I mentioned, to prevent this from becoming an editorial dispute I think it's better to decide which is the next step. However, I thought it was important to elaborate nomination. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information wouldn't fit well with other articles. Reliable sources are covering this event so it passes the General notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI agree with Dream Focus that reliable sources are covering this event so it passes WP:GNG. WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP come to mind. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe an article about foreign intervention in Venezuela that also includes Russia, Cuba and Colombian paramilitary could be more informative and balanced. --MaoGo (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about the same thing. After Sandy's contributions it would be ideal to rename this as Foreign involvement in the Venezuelan crisis. It is way more neutral and balanced. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a generally accepted name on wikipedia for the current crisis or should we include a year in the name? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The size of American intervention in Venezuela is great even if it is not military. US statements and sanctions must be given a special article.--Sakiv (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for name[edit]

There is no question that there have been multiple nations attempting to manipulate the situation in Venezuela through intervention. If we mention one, we should mention them all, not only to provide NPOV, but to provide more accurate details about the situation. Proposing Foreign intervention in Venezuela.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Article 187, "intervention" could hamstring content. I prefer the suggestion above of Foreign involvement in the 2019 Venezuelan crisis. With a year. We have other articles where editors can dump in historical stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very helpful. It could also help trimming down its main article. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly believe that the current subject of the article (namely: "U.S. intervention in Venezuela") is the best related-subject to present the concept of the article; and such phrase is notable enough based on news/media to have an independent page by such exact name --to clarify the issue directly for the readers. Besides, considering (AFAIK) the major part of Foreign intervention/involvement in Venezuela is related to the U.S.; hence it is better to keep its current name. And at most, to add the new suggested topic "Foreign involvement in the 2019 Venezuelan crisis" in other similar articles such as Crisis in Venezuela, etc. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2019 (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/U.S._intervention_in_Venezuela&oldid=895441583"