Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Hugo Chávez (3nd 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   speedy keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Hugo Chávez
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations. This article needs editing to meet WP:NPOV standards (especially in the light that he is a living person), but given the size and complexity of the Hugo Chavez article it is a necessary split for the sanity of that article. JRP (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the Hugo Chavez article recently? It was slimmed down, with much material moved to daughter articles. Rd232 talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be clearer, but it seems to pointing at WP:COATRACK issues. Rd232 talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant material to related articles, reformulated not as "criticism" (WP:SOAPBOX) but as verifiable, relevant, up-to-date, etc information. Rd232 talk 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep'  important enough. Some effort needs to be made to find not just criticisms, but RS  discussions of the sort of criticisms he gets, & why. The tone of this article is altogether too negative & it needs some balance. "criticism of" does not mean "attacks on"  DGG (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge--if there is criticism of Putin, Chavez, Peter Pan, etc., it should be in the main article. I'd like to make a principled stand here also, but I'm a vox clamantis already. Whatever info in this article is worth keeping should be incorporated into respective sections in the main article, not in some separate "criticism" section, which just attracts flaming and soapboxing. (Sorry if you've heard this before.) Drmies (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (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.