Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin nationalism


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin nationalism
Hello, first let me give myself some credentials : I studied Spanish/Latin American politics and history and i NEVER before heard of this "Latin Nationalism" , i think this page is the result of hispanophobia and paranoia.

Also this article has NO SOURCES WHATSOEVER, and it doesn't meet WIKI criterias, i suggest we delete it.

The closest thing that comes to this "Latin Nationalism" is pan-americanism--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think this comes pretty close to being patent nonsense. An unverified and very vague claim that defines nothing. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Keep. It's a poor start to an article, however it is a notable topic. The topic, however, appears to be similar to or an aspect of Pan-Americanism which already has a Wikipedia article. I think this article should be merged as a section to the Pan-Americanism article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note--first of all, it's a very strange kind of Pan-Americanism, since it leaves out a significant chunk of the Americas (the non-Spanish part) and thus isn't 'Pan'; second, what article? there's really nothing in it--no names, no places, no dates, no sources, no nothing. This stub, incidentally, has a long history and used to be much bigger--and it never had any meaningful information with sources to back it up. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a start to an article. It's the result of this having most of its content taken out.  I suggest reading it for onesself. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did read that, thank you--maybe I didn't make that clear enough. The version you refer to has, admirably, content, but little merit. For starters, while making such bold claims it had nothing to back it up. More disconcerting, while the (very vague) lead suggested a broad, supra-national movement (it speaks of Latin people, singular, and about collective self-determination), the rest of the article takes a different tack. La Raza, for instance, addresses a racial identity more than a Latin identity (whatever that might be). The section on Organizations is different again, speaking as it does of local, or national, organizations--that's not Latin independence, but Puerto-Rican, Mexican, etc. And the main part of that section bears that out again--that's not about Latin independence or self-determination, that's independence from the US overlord. There is a huge difference between 'Latin organization' and 'Latin (supra-?) nationalist organization.' So I stick to my point: the term is as yet unproven, and that section that attempts to define terms does not, unfortunately, define what really should be the point of the article. Drmies (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was encouraging other people not to take your word for what the older versions said, and to read them for themselves. In part this is because you seem to be missing the "also known as [&hellip;] Hispanic nationalism" in the very first sentence of the older articles.  Hispanic nationalism was the subject, and Hispanic nationalism has been documented by sources.  That the article doesn't agree with what actual sources say is a reason to edit it, to fix it so that it does.  The reason that the article stands now in the state that it does, is that a rather hamfisted attempt to fix it, based upon personal surmise and the same sort of "It seems to me that &hellip;" arguments that you yourself are making, has brought it into the disrepair that it now stands in.  The answer is to stop trying to work out what the subject is, based upon personal opinion, and instead start looking at what sources document it to be.  I once again direct you to the two already cited, and encourage you to look for further ones. Read them and see what they say.  The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources.  It's also the way to write Wikipedia articles and to decide what goes in them and what they are about.  Deletion is only the answer when there are no sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure where you found my personal opinion (I don't have any about these matters) on what that subject is. Oh, I also didn't say anything about the sources (there weren't any given); please don't put words in my mouth. I thought the subject was supposed to be found in the first sentence(s) of any given article. I never said it should be anything--I was merely pointing out that the definition given in the lead was vague (not a matter of opinion) and that what the article talked about was something different. I could argue that in detail, but I'll spare you that. I'll be in the library for those two books (the ones named below, I imagine) and in the meantime I'll withdraw my no-vote. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Changed my !vote to Keep. It appears that instead of marking the article as needing citations, the content was almost completely stripped out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To the nominator, I suggest that xe prepare to learn something new:
 * Note that the older version of the article explicitly gave Hispanic nationalism as an alternative name, and that Hispanic nationalism already redirects here. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's original research, same as it ever was. [New vote below] The article has been around long enough and should have been sourced by now. It's incoherent and, though this may not figure much into the decision here, the earlier versions seem ill-intentioned, to boot, especially the original one. And I don't see why this "nationalism" has to be associated with Pan-Americanism, since the latter is about hemispheric solidarity, i.e. unity among all countries in the Americas (usually invoked most strongly during world wars). It's not an "ethnic identity", the subject of the article in question from its origin. SamEV (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. An "it should have been sourced long since" argument doesn't wash.  Some of our articles have taken half a decade to be sourced.  The question is whether it can be sourced.  Even Jmundo below acknowledges that there are sources on the subject of Hispanic nationalism &mdash; the subject as originally defined in the article before it was stripped.  So the answer to the question is "yes".  Everything else is, per Deletion policy a matter of Wikipedia editors writing.  Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "No deadline" could be invoked to prevent absolutely any action. Must be why it's not policy — I don't know. And as for there being sources for "Hispanic nationalism" in the US, in that case the best course for you might be to turn the Hispanic nationalism redirect into an article about Hispanic nationalism in the US and forget about the mess that is the Latin nationalism stub; The title is OR, anyway. SamEV (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Pat for the sources. (It's true what he says: one's not having heard of it doesn't mean it's not true; like a Spanish sphere of influence in Indochina.) The question remains as to whether this "Latin nationalism" is a real thing with flesh enough to merit its own article, or whether it's just a throwaway construction of some authors'. It's clear that it's mostly used as a shorthand alternative for "Latin American nationalism", a much more widely used term. At the same time, many of the sources refer to Latin European nationalism: in Romania ; in France, ; in a Byzantine vs Western Roman context; in a Renaissance context . So either a section should be added about Latin European nationalism, or the article should be renamed to "Latin American nationalism", which in any case gets four times more hits than does "Latin nationalism" . Those are different entities, Latin America and Latin Europe, each with its own article already; their respective nationalisms should likewise be treated in separate articles. But I still think the whole thing is too darn nebulous to support an article. So I still vote to delete. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is our Editing policy. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines.  And a bad title does not require AFD to be fixed.  Also note that writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.  You want this article fixed, sofixit.  You don't get to demand that other people write for you. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User Deepstratagem did right by removing so much unsourced content he found controversial, and if anyone goes and removes what he left, the burden would be on whoever restores it. So says WP:V — a policy with which I'm familiar enough, thank you. You've come close to suggesting that it is somehow my obligation to write. Well, it isn't. I volunteer my time to WP as I see fit and in the articles of my choosing. (I thought I'd let it go, Uncle G. But your tone...) SamEV (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe sources cited above are about Hispanic nationalism in the United States by Hispanic and Latino Americans. This article about Latin America doesn't cite sources not even trivial ones to establish notability. Maybe a hoax. --Jmundo (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Change to Keep and expand per the references mention in this discussion. This is a challenging topic and sources should be incorporated into the article. --Jmundo (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't about Latin America originally. Read the older version.  Why should the fact that an article has been wrecked by rewriting mean that it should be deleted, rather than fixed?  It's been rewritten once, and can be again.  The fact that sources exist to write on the subject of Hispanic nationalism in the United States, a subject that the original article covered and that is also obviously intended to be covered here given the redirect at Hispanic nationalism, argues that writing, not deletion, is the answer here. Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I invite you to write an article about Hispanic nationalism in the U.S. This article is about Latin nationalism, a vague and confusing term without a single verifiable source. --Jmundo (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Once again: Read the older version.  It said "Hispanic nationalism" in boldface in the very first sentence, and went on to discuss U.S. subjects in most of the body. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: a simple search for the term in Google books shows that historians use this term . Just because the nominator has not heard of the term does not mean it is non-existent, or that it is original research.  For example  "The old order based on patronising American imperialism was swept away by the scalding torrents of Fidel Castro's newly proclaimed Latin nationalism."   "What Castro and his retinue have managed in the past twenty-five years is to harness the latent force of a romantic Latin nationalism"  In JFK's publication, "On an earlier trip throughout Latin America, I became familiar with the hopes and burdens which characterize this tide of Latin nationalism."  Original research?  I think not.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok let me just say (and no personal attack by the way) that before you take on user :Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's talk, let me make it clear that he is a extreme hispanophobe as shown numerous times in many spanish/hispanic-related articles and he will ALWAYS be against anything i do or say or edit (i believe he holds a personal grudge against me). This latin nationalism is non-existent between hispanics , the hispanic people have many rivalries and some show extreme hate for each other , countries like Mexico and Argentina , or Peru and Chile , or Bolivia and Paraguay don't get along (at least between the common population) , to say latin nationalism (which include MANY DIVERSE CULTURES, CUSTOMS AND sometimes even LANGUAGES) is like saying of a "asian nationalism" , both make no sense at all, and lastly the article's title say its "LATIN" (referring to Latin America which include countries who DON'T SPEAK SPANISH , like Brazil/Haiti etc. This article makes no sense whatsoever , please delete it or merge with something else. Red hat of Ferrick what your sources list is the thinking of one man (Castro) and it says of nationalism WITHIN Latin America , not "Latin Nationalism"--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to familiarizing yourself with our Deletion policy, as below, please also familiarize yourself with our other policies and guidelines, including Assume good faith. Responding to source citations and a discussion of whether something is original research with a personal attack on the editor making the argment (and what you wrote is a personal attack, despite your claim that it isn't) is both unwanted here and a good indication that you know that you don't have an effective counterargument based upon our policies and guidelines and what the sources say. And yes, I found those books when looking for sources, too.  They really do say "Latin nationalism", in those very words, contrary to what you state.  I picked the other sources (cited above) because they don't just refer to the subject tangentially, but discuss it directly, and in detail.  Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To the nominator, I suggest that xe prepare to learn something new:
 * Antonia Darder and Rodolfo D. Torres, ed. (1998). "Aztlan, Borinquen, and Hispanic Nationalism in the United States". The Latino Studies Reader. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 63–82. ISBN 1557869871.
 * José Enrique Idler (2007). "Hispanic identity making". Officially Hispanic. Lexington Books. pp. 175 et seq.. ISBN 0739119699.
 * Note that the older version of the article explicitly gave Hispanic nationalism as an alternative name, and that Hispanic nationalism already redirects here. Uncle G'' (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)"
 * Ok Uncle G you did not understand (or perhaps i didn't explained ) i have no problem with a title "Hispanic Nationalism IN THE UNITED STATES" but the current title "Latin Nationalism"+no sources/references whatsoever makes this article a big pile of "shark" and deserves to be delete it--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not our Deletion policy. If an article can be edited, renamed, or otherwise refactored, then that is the solution, not deletion.  Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable topic, perhaps merge, but the nominatory statement is utterly inappropriate for an AfD. &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several published books dedicated to the subject to add to the ones already mentioned Nationalism in Latin America. Diversity and Unity by Gerhard Masur, Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America by Arthur Whitaker and David C. Jordan, Racial identity and nationalism: a theoretical view from Latin America by Peter Wade and countless papers, , . --neon white talk 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable topic, perhaps merge, but the nominatory statement is utterly inappropriate for an AfD. &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several published books dedicated to the subject to add to the ones already mentioned Nationalism in Latin America. Diversity and Unity by Gerhard Masur, Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America by Arthur Whitaker and David C. Jordan, Racial identity and nationalism: a theoretical view from Latin America by Peter Wade and countless papers, , . --neon white talk 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There are just too many nationalists movements within latin america for a single "latin nationalism" to exist.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion that there is a 'single nationalism'. It's a political theory and will naturally exist in many forms. --neon white talk 18:31, 16 December 2008 (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.