Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA sponsored regime change


 * 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. I call upon those who said things like "keep and rewrite" or "keep, but fix POV" to actually do it, or I'm sure we'll see the article back here in a couple of months. Mango juice talk 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CIA sponsored regime change
The CIA may not have supported ALL of these movements, and I heard the article itself is questionable anyway.

If anyone wishes to rewrite the article into an NPOV manner and/or choose a better title to save the article, feel free! :) WhisperToMe 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Regardless of whether or not the CIA actively sponsored these movements, the very premise of this article appears to be hopelessly POV; fails WP:SOAPBOX. "Regime change" is also inadequately defined besides the POV issues. (The World Bank/IMF or even the United Nations could be said to actively sponsor regime change for instance under the vague criteria in the article) Bwithh 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Proposal made in order to push a POV and suppress another one. As the proposer states, he would accept the article if it stated a different point-of-view. Being POV is not a criteria for deletion, but for improvement. -- Petri Krohn 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
 * Keep this is not the venue to argue about content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
 * Strong Keep - The nominator "heard" that the article is questionable? From whom, and if this mysterious source is so troubled by the article why did the source not nominate it? If the nominator believes the article is not NPOV, why does the nominator not re-write it instead of telling others to "feel free" to do it? Crap nomination, no valid reason offered for deletion. If not wanted as a separate article, then merge into CIA controversies but this material can certainly stand on its own as an index/synopsis of the various main articles on the topic. Otto4711 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto, it is inherently acceptable to AFD some article titles that lead to inherent POVness. WhisperToMe 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is inherently unacceptable to me to Afd an article with the reason "I heard it was questionable." Otto4711 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not a very good argument for deleting the article, but this is a discussion, not just a series of opinions on whether the nominator got it right. I don't think NPOV is a very good argument against this article; I think saying that it is redundant, badly named, and a POV fork are good arguments. If we are trying to rationalize the structure of the information here, I think logically this article should be a subsection of the CIA article; instead, it repeats - badly - material already in that article. We just don't need it. --Brianyoumans 07:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

*Comment As it stands, a rather worthless POV magnet of an article. This is exactly the type of page that needs solid referencing, including inline citations - and it has none. Needs a wider range of sources too (also please note: Lew Rockwell's website is probably not the ideal place to go if you want to create factually accurate, NPOV pages). If that's not enough to delete then stubify, remove unreferenced and possibly POV content pending a rewrite. (Actually, that first paragraph has got to go right away as a violation of WP:SOAPBOX).
 * Keep The article referes to regime changes instigated by the CIA which have had multiple independent reliable and verifiable coverage in the mainstream press for decades. They are notable and encyclopedic. Sorry if truth seems POV. Edison 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Axe-grinding listcruft. Hard to imagine this ever being NPOV. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pending editing There may be an article topic here, but this one needs NPOV editing and a better definition of "regime change." My favorite entry - "failed coups against Chavez." How can a failed government overthrow constitute a "regime change?" GassyGuy 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This has POV issues, particularly in the lead. Furthermore, a better name is needed if this stays, "regime change" isn't well defined. I suspect this would be better collapsed into CIA controversies, but I can't suggest a merge in its current state. BryanG(talk) 07:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per BryanG. Bjelleklang -  talk 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but fix POV in lead.Vints 07:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep although the name is arguably POV, as "regime change" was a neologism/euphemism of the White House relating to the Iraq war (and prewar period). --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Petri and Otto, Needs work though. Where are Indonesia and Chile? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect: To CIA. All these ops and more are covered in the CIA article. Redundant. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. "I heard the article itself is questionable anyway"? Thats not making a strong case for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conversely, you have not made a strong case for keeping. AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
 * Keep Factual, no POV issue. Could do with improved style and there are many other examples that could be included, but otherwise OK.  Emeraude 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Having read the other CIA articles, I agree with Brianyoumans below that this is an unnecessary duplication of material easily available elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Folantin 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. CIA involvement in overthrowing various governments (Mossadegh, Lumumba, Arbenz, Trujillo, ...) is well documented. (See 'Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since WWII' by William Blum.) A page like this is handy if only to point to a lot of more detailed articles. Being a POV magnet is not reason to delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant with CIA and Category:CIA_operations. Alternately, transcat to a subcategory of Category:CIA_operations.  This article doesn't add anything that isn't currently in those sources - if the authors eventually develop CIA to the point where it needs a spin-out, that's fine, but there will be better editorial participation if the drafting occurs in the main CIA article rather than in this fork.  TheronJ 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All it needs is some work, andj per Reinoutr. &mdash; Arjun 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename The page conveys a point of view before one even opens it. The word "regime", while neutral in its dictionary sense, carries notions of repugnancy or totalitarianism. The central contention of the article - that the CIA were involved in the overthrow of a number of governments - is supported by numerous reliable sources and I do not believe NPOV is a content problem with this subject as long as editors adhere to Wikipedia policies/pillars. The current content is suspect but cleanup is not a reason in itself for deletion - whacking a big "cleanup" tag on it and inviting editors to improve it is the answer to that problem. I wish I could think of a better title. Orderinchaos78 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about CIA involvement in involuntary removal of foreign governments? Otto4711 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is "involuntary removal of governments" less POV than "regime change"? -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Involuntary removal of governments" is not POV at all. It means that the existing government is removed against the will of the government. Are you suggesting that when the CIA has taken action to remove a foreign government from power that there has been even a single such foreign government that has welcomed the CIA's efforts to remove it? Can you cite an example of such a case? A thank you note from a deposed head of state perhaps? I mean seriously, are you joking? You're the one claiming that the phrase is tainted with POV; instead of just repeating it, try supporting the assertion. Sheesh. Otto4711 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me and I you. There is nothing POV in "Involuntary removal", it is just a clumsier way of saying "regime change". I do not think there is anything POV in "regime change" either, besides it has an article. Reading the article does bring up some questions though. The article assumes that external military force is needed for something to be called "regime change". It seems that this is a post Iraq War misunderstanding. I think the phrase was used long before G.W. Bush. -- Petri Krohn 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename and expand. It's way too short to be a real article, especially on such a potentially controversial subject. The title needs to have a word like "suggested," or something. Danielfolsom 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These are all covered or have links from the main CIA article. This is just a POV fork. --Brianyoumans 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: this is clearly a valid, notable and verifiable encyclopedic topic which is too complex to deal with in the main CIA article in anything other than summary form. Perhaps the title could be improved: in which case it should also be renamed. -- The Anome 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Are we really saying this doesn't happen? Anyway wanting an article written in less POV manner is a job for POV tags, and wanting a name change is what we have a section for, neither of these are concerns for AfD. --Nuclear Zer0 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that these CIA actions did not occur. The only question is how many redundant badly-named articles we need pointing to the information. If someone is looking for information on a coup in Guatemala supported by the CIA, where would they look? The article Guatemala? The article CIA? Or would they search for "CIA sponsored regime change"? Both Guatemala and CIA have links to the main article on the CIA operation in Guatemala, Operation PBSUCCESS. Eliminating this article is not a coverup, it is getting rid of a piece of badly-named listcruft. --Brianyoumans 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree. I would search using 'CIA coups' or 'attempted CIA coups' anyway. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite to have a neutral POV.-- E va   b  d  22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your !vote is effectively for the article to be rewritten completely. In effect, you are arguing for deletion of this article in its current form.  Zun aid  © Review me! 
 * Delete per user Brianyoumans. --SECurtisTX | talk 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundent with CIA controversies, CIA, and Category:CIA_operations. Lyrl Talk C 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but Rename/Rewrite Brian1975 05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your !vote is effectively for a completely new article to be created that does not use the POV stance from this article. In effect, your argument supports deletion of this article in its current form.  Zun aid  © Review me! 
 * Strong Delete. In its current state, the article exists only to push a point of view. It is also made redundant by other (more neutral) articles on the CIA and the corresponding issues. Perhaps summarizing the content in one article is warranted, but only under a different title, and after a complete rewrite that contains more than zero sources. There is nothing here that merits a keep. (|--   UlT i MuS  08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ultimus. Mamalujo 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge all the information on this page is factual. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork of content already available in more WP:NPOV form elsewhere in the 'pedia, and per WP:SOAPBOX.  Zun aid  © Review me!  14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless npov issues are cleared up FirefoxMan 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia already has more than enough magnets for left-wing POV. Such articles are walking, long-term, blatant demolitions of the entire WP:NPOV philosophy. -- BryanFromPalatine 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lars T. 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please give an argument. This is a discussion, not a vote. --Folantin 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the fact that some people see facts as inherently POV is no reason to follow them. Lars T. 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - My issue is with the way the data is presented. Something's not right about it, so, what we should do is change the page name and/or merge into other CIA articles. WhisperToMe 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be pretty much redundant and I agree completely with Bwithh when he pointed out that this article title is in itself heavily POV and violates WP:NOT. Moreschi Deletion! 13:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The meagre contents are already in the CIA article; there's no need for another list article dedicated to these three operations. Sandstein 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ditto from above. Shane (talk/contrib) 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV title and duplication of material elsewhere. Appears to be hobby-horse topic.ALR 11:12, 11 January 2007 (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.