Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Chilean sentiment


 * 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  'No consensus, default to keep. The split of people bringing their opinions to the discussion was fairly even; for those counting votes, "delete" had a slight edge. POV will continue to be a concern in any article of this nature, as well as reliable sourcing, although there has been substantial editing since the nomination. If problems are not resolved, the matter might be brought back up again. Mandsford 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Chilean sentiment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite Anti-Chilean sentiment does exist, there is simply not enough reliable sources to effectively sustain this article. Several users have expressed their concerns with this article. This article goes against (1) WP:Content forking, (2) WP:Verifiability, and (3) WP:NPOV. Much of this information can, is, and should be found at the respective bilateral relations pages that concern Chile. Reliable sources are needed to sustain many of the exceptional claims. Neutrality does not exist in this article as everything is centered on a biased "the world hates me" position. On a similar note, several of the other articles in this series of "discrimination" face the problem of lacking verifiability.
 * Additional Information
 * Let's remember that throughout the world neighboring countries generally don't like each other. In this sense, there exists HUNDREDS of "Anti-X" possibilities. This falls in the same note as those bilateral relations articles (there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of options; however, only highly notable ones are allowed to be articles).
 * Analyzing This Article
 * The introduction has no references, despite it has exceptional claims.
 * The body of the article does not justify anything in the introduction.
 * The "examples" section goes against Content forking. This information can be and is better found (and, if it's not, it should be) at the respective Chile-Peru relations and Chile-Argentina relations articles.
 * If it exists, why delete it?
 * Given the highly controversial topic, it should have reliable references supporting the material. Obviously, this article does not hold the reliable references needed. Hence, it breaks the Verifiability rule. Additionally, by being so obviously one-sided on the subject, the article breaks the WP:NPOV pillar.
 * Also, remember the example of the "bilaterial relations of x and y" articles that faced massive deletion due to their lack of notability (determined by reliable sources). This same situation happens with this article. No sources actually support any of the introductory claims of "anti-Chilean sentiment".
 * Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Voting/Discussion:


 * Delete: As submitter.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Actually, I disagree with all of your nomination. There is an anti-Chilean sentiment in those three countries, most of times. Merging the content with bilateral relations of something and john smith will not fix anything, this is not a hugely political problem, the article speaks for itself. Diego Grez (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reason for the nomination is because it goes against the rules of Wikipedia. The article lacks the essential sources to even sustain its introduction. Your premises are that (1) anti-Chilean sentiment exists, (2) that bilateral relations articles will not fix anything, (3) it is not a hugely political problem, and (4) the article speaks for itself. Your third premise lowers the notability of the article. Your fourth premise doesn't make sense: articles don't speak. Your second premise talks about fixing, but the point of Wikipedia is to inform not fix. Your first premise is a given fact, but it does not sustain your conclusion of keeping the article. By your first premise, Wikipedia would never delete articles on everything that exists. My point is that Wikipedia should delete this article based on the broken rules that I presented (Content fork, verifiability, and NPOV). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Topic is not established as notable or even discussed in general. Of course when nations invade each other and try to take each other's land negative statements will be made. Half of the article is about one statement by one person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this article cites only specific cases of people making negative comments about chileans, wich may easily be countered with people making positive comments. The general "anti-chilean sentiment" is just the basic rivalry between any neighbour countries, there's little specific to it. MBelgrano (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep this reasons argued is that "anti-chilean sentiment" dosn't exist. Well first of all there are anti-xxxxx sentiments for every country be it Chile the United States Israel Ethiopia or Canada. Then it comes down to can we find sources of incidences of anti-chilean sentiment. These do not even have to reflect that the prejudice is very common but need to reflect that there are incidences of anti-chilean sentiment. This article has done this. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because something "exists" does not mean we should have an article on it. I have not denied the existence of such feeling, I pointed that it is just the basic rivalry, and thus merely trivial. If this sentiment was something notable, we should expect manifestations of it more permanent than just quotes, such as influences on politic ideas, historical events, in the arts or social sciences, etc. MBelgrano (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. None of us are denying the "existance" of Anti-Chilean sentiment; however what it comes down to here is notability and verifiability. The subject is neither notable or verifiable. Citing the statements of a General who said he would send back invaders (in a war) in trash bags, is not an example of "anti-Chilean sentiment". At the most, it serves as an example of how crudely some military officers view the subject of war. The problems the statements caused (not the statement by itself) are notable enough to be in the Chile-Peru relations article. However, this has nothing to do with "Anti-Chilean sentiment". I'd delete that whole section since it has nothing to do with the article, but since the subject is currently under review I will refrain from editing the article until a solution is concluded.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The following two pro-delete statements made by Likeminas and Andres Chile 123 :  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: What a waste of web space this page is. my goodness.--Likeminas (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete :I totally agree. Please, delete this article.--Andres chile 123 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: The last two 'delete' votes above were comments made on the article's talk page, that were moved here to be counted as 'Delete' votes. I'm not sure about the validity of that...? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They asked for the deletion of this article in the talk page of the article. Their decisions directly concerning this discussion cannot be ignored.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Except they both called for deletion on the talk page several months before the AfD was created. 'Transplanting' calls for deletion from the talk page of an article to be counted as delete votes in an AfD smacks of votestacking. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I smelled a flower which had the scent of a rose, but it was a daisy. You are presenting a possible "votesacking" accusation despite the link you provide in no way supports your claim. As with my flower example, your perception is invalid if it does not follow the rules. I would contact those users, but if I did then I would be canvassing votes. Since you seem interested in their more current opinion, and being a neutral party to this discussion, why do you not contact them?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the letter of votestacking, but it does violate the spirit of the rule, IMHO. However, I understand it was done in good faith, no worries. :) Directly contacting them, regardless of who did it, would be canvassing; however, a notification to WP:CHILE about the discussion would not be, and so I've done that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a smart decision. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article is inherently POV and appears to be a content fork of Chile. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: - WikiProject Chile has been notified of this discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest the nominator and the voters to have a look at here. The "sentimiento anti-chileno" (anti-Chilean sentiment) is widely discussed and, although I agree the article can be an easy POV-pushing spot, there's nothing wrong with having an article on this. Diego Grez (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for suggestion. I would like to suggest you look at "Sentimiento anti peruano", "Sentimiento anti argentino" , "sentimiento anti colombiano" . Essentially, the conclusion is that everybody hates or dislikes someone in this world. Nobody who is voting "delete" is denying the existance of "anti-Chilean sentiment". However, this sentiment is not notable in comparisson to all the other "I hate you, you hate me" type of problems in this planet. Since there is no notability on the subject, it does not need a whole article dedicated to it (especially if the article is largely unsourced despite it has several exceptional claims). The many Foreign relations of Chile articles are the main outlets for any of this type of information. This "Anti-Chilean sentiment" article is not notable, verifiable, nor does it hold a NPOV.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then begin an article on the anti-Colombia, anti-Peruvian, and anti-Argentinian sentiments. The non-NPOV is fixeable, the sentiment is notable, and is verifiable. Diego Grez (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe the "sentiment is notable, and is verifiable", you have the option (at this time, before any actual decision is made) to fix the three points I made which break the Wiki article rules: (1) WP:Content forking, (2) WP:Verifiability, and (3) WP:NPOV. I have explained each of the points in the opening statement of this AfD discussion. If none of the people in favor of keeping this article are able to actually address the three points which break WP standards, there is no other option but to follow the established rules and delete this article. Furthermore: The notability of this article is dubious for two reasons:
 * This article has been around for nearly 1 year. Since then, barely any contributions have been made to it; and the few that have been done are content forks and NPOV unsourced material that places the nations of Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina in extremely bad light.
 * In the Spanish WP, a logical place which should have this topic addressed, there is no such article.
 * Once again, the point of this is not to deny the existance of "Anti-Chilean sentiment", but it's not something that should have its own article as long as it fails so many different WP standards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has much improved since the nomination, and I thank the nominator for bringing this to our attention. There are 9 citations constituting reliable sources in the article now. I can see room for improvement still, but I am convinced that the article as it stands is NPOV. I am not convinced it ever was a content fork; it is perfectly normal for summaries of related points to be covered in related articles. I also feel that derogatory terms and prejudice are more suitable as the subject of this article than as the subject of International Relations articles, whose primary focus is diplomatic relations between states. Anarchangel (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: 4 of the 9 citations all came from the incorrectly used Donayre speech. The following lines require verification:
 * ''Anti-Chilean sentiment refers to a diverse spectrum of prejudices, dislikes or fears of Chile, Chileans, or Chilean culture. Anti-Chilean sentiment is most prevalent in the neighbors of Chile; Argentina, Bolivia and Peru particularly in the later two that lost the War of the Pacific in the 19th century to Chile.
 * ''Hostile rethoric toward Chile and Chileans have historically emanated from the political elite of neighboring countries. In the case of Argentina anti-Chilean sentment rose high around 1900 due to border disputes with Chile, and Chile's rise to a regional power after the War of the Pacific. During the Beagle conflict in the 1970s anti-Chilean discourses were common as Argentina prepared for a war of aggression towards Chile. Anti-Chilean speeches in Argentina are common.
 * ''In Bolivia anti-Chilean sentment is fueled by Bolivian claims for territory in the Pacific coast. A common political discourse attributes, at least partly, Bolivia's underdevelopment to its loss of seaports in the War of the Pacific becoming thus a landlocked country.
 * The hilarious part is that even the term "Anti-Chilean sentiment" seems to be an invented term with an invented definition (WP:OR). All of these lines (above in italics) deal with "historical cases", however none of them actually have citations to verify any of those claims. If these paragraphs were to be deleted, all that would be left is a definition of the word Roto (which has its own article) and some Argentinean insult of Chilote. Your improvements Anarchangel are well-intentioned and on the right track, but the information you cite is the non-controversial one. The lines I present are all the controversial lines, including the opening statement which falls into WP:OR. The article Roto is actually more suitable to focus on the nationalist issues people have with Chile.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok MarshalN20 here we go "Anti-xxxxx sentiment" is a template. You can put just about any sociological group in their. None of them exist in a dictionary. Think about it you can say anti-gay and that is actually not a term persay. You can also say anti-government. This is not a term either. What is hilarious is how little you seem to comprehend the complications of the english language. Anti-Chilean sentiment is not a term but a compound set of words to discuss a topic. Much like "Discrimination againist people with HIV/AIDS". Thats not a term either.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, please remember to focus on the content. Do not insult users. Second, regarding homosexuals or people with HIV/AIDS, using those matters as examples in a national discrimination discussion makes no sense. Third, and finally, do not change the focus of the discussion: no reliable sources cite the alleged "historical information" that is supposed to serve as support for anti-chilean sentiment.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm going to use OTHER STUFF as precedent, sorry. There are "Anti-XXX Sentiment" pages for Russia (Russophobia), China (Sinophobia), the United States (anti-Americanism), and Turkey (anti-Turkism). Coastal Chile is regarded with historical enmity by some of its neighbors. The topic is thus valid for encyclopedic coverage, in my estimation. This is not "Original Research" in the Wikipedia sense, it is an attempt to craft an article on a legitimate topic. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.