Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political prisoners in Venezuela


 * 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   delete. arguments that this is a pov title and soapboxing haven't been refuted and there is credible evidence of canvassing that means I have given the keep side less weight and also discarded some keep arguments that were by assertion or non policy based. I suggest that future content be directed to the human rights article as it clearly needs expanding Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Political prisoners in Venezuela

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As the overlap with User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition) and the recent dispute history at Human rights in Venezuela / Talk:Human rights in Venezuela indicates, this is a clear WP:POVFORK. Note that there is just 1 (one) other article of the "Political prisoners in..." type: Political prisoners in Croatia, which relates to Croatia in the 1970s and 80s. The standard format for these topics is "Human rights in...", as can be seen from the navbox at the bottom of the original article, Human rights in Venezuela. Rd232 talk 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm calling this WP:SOAP. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I cosider this article a WP:POVFORK of the Human rights in Venezuela article.Cathar11 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1. This page is dealing with an entirely notable subject, which is political prisoners in Venezuela. If any of you has any doubt please look at:
 * Keep this page

- press article like this one, from the Washington Post: and there are many others.

- the web page on Venezuela of the Human Rights Foundation:

- or simply people who are obviously incarcerated for political reasons. Look for example at recent cases like Eligio Cedeno or Maria Lourdes Afiuni

- there has even been a hunger strike on the subject by students in Venezuela. Look here

2. Yes, I agree, there should be a paragraph in the page Human rights in Venezuela about political prisoners, but this is quite compatible with having a more detailed page on this specific subject. This is not because a subject is mentioned in a page that there should not be a specific specialized page on the subject. We will just put below the head of the paragraph a sign: main article etc.

3. For now there is nothing about political prisoners in the article about Human rights in Venezuela, or one sentence. We are thinking at how to organize this article. Also, it is not fair to mention as an argument only a draft user page. A draft user page is what it is: a draft. The article human rights in Venezuela is in the edition mode. Don't forget WP:WIP !

4. Another proof that this article is not WP:POVFORK is the content of the Human rights in Venezuela page. There are at least 6 points (Press freedom, Gender and sexual orientation equality, Human trafficking, Independence of justice, Agrarian violence, Human Rights Watch and also others that are in the pipe (History, Constitution, Extra-judicial killings, indigeneous rights etc.). Political prisoners is only part of one subject, independence of justice, hardly a similar content! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voui (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Cheers Voui (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I mentioned User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition) is that (as the name suggests) it related to disputed additions to Human rights in Venezuela. You walked away from discussion about the details of the disputed content, and instead sidestepped the issue by creating this POV fork, rather than engage in dispute resolution (your response to my proposal for an RFC on adding your material was "A RFC would be better after there is some text that is contested."! A couple of hours later you created this fork .) You've also sought to add similar content to Venezuela, Politics of Venezuela and Government of Venezuela, particularly in the period when Human rights in Venezuela was protected for a week due to your apparent preference for edit warring over discussion and dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst we're on the subject, both Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni seem to have WP:BLP1E issues. Rd232 talk 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again this is not a fork, but a different page on a notable subject. This issue for all of us wikipedians is not our editing dispute but whether there is a place for a page named "Political prisoners in Venezuela" Voui (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say also that I don't accept what you mention about the past. But again the point is: should we keep this page? But this is a long story and I am in Europe. It is here 2am and I go to bed. good night!Voui (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Shouldn't we judge on content? It appears to be documented. Student7 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This user requested that the article creator add an email address, for the express purpose of communicating off-wiki. Rd232 talk 08:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is old stuff. Student7 and me are often on Venezuela pages, not always together, unlike Rd232 and JRSP, who are often partners. It is completely natural that Student7 is here on this page, just like JRSP is there too. There is nothing hidden here. The difference is that I am not accusing anybody of any wrongdoing. Voui (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Student7's message to you amply explains why I mentioned it here. JRSP has not provided an email address. (I only did when I became an admin, by the by.) Rd232 talk 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on! You and JRSP are editing, and reverting, in tandem anyway. But what you are doing with your email is none of my business. After all we are not in Cuba or Venezuela here! -:) Voui (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is WP:SOAP from its title, the content is just an enumeration of recent judicial cases; allegations of political motivations of their imprisonment is often based on blogs and other unreliable sources. Some of the material may be useful if presented in a more neutral tone with an adequate representation of all relevant parties opinions but with a title like "political prisoners" this article would be unredeemedly destined to be a POV magnet and a perpetual battleground. JRSP (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. My first reaction was "Lets let Amnesty International do that", a quick look on amnesty.org reveals that they don't. Although it will be hotbeds of POV wars between people who honestly believe that dissent is a form of terrorism and democrats, I think it's an important topic, and worth trying. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article creator requested this user to participate here. (The creator has a history of WP:CANVASing:  .) Rd232 talk 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have sent an open message to OpenFuture because he was involved in the discussions we had on the page Human rights in Venezuela (and as an honest broker it seems to me, not at all partisan - in fact he managed to edit things that were agreed by consensus by all of us, an impressive performance I must say. See here ) so I thought that his opinion on this subject mattered and that he may be able to help. Is it wrong to do that? And BTW I have done everything by open wikipedia communication, not by email. I believe that we should not transform the discussion on page deletion into a dispute resolution of other subjects. Voui (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the terms in which you originally canvassed OpenFuture (" I have seen what you have done to edit on Cuba. Maybe you could help with Venezuela, the main Cuba friend. And I really need some help. Look especially at Human rights in Venezuela, Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni.") he can hardly be an "honest broker" (though in his few comments he certainly tried). And indeed we should not use this page in place of dispute resolution - but since you so constantly ignore or reject DR, and the circumstances of the creation of this article, it's hard for this discussion not to develop in that direction. Rd232 talk 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes he did ask me. So? I can keep a cool and neutral point of view even if some random guy asked me for help because he found my other actions on other articles helpful. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Added comment:
 * I would not disagree that this page could be improved. This is a recent page and there is still work to do. But this is a good reason to edit the page, not delete it. See WP:WIP. It seems to me that the real issue is: "is this subject notable". What seems to me very important is that it is an undisputed fact that this subject is notable. Nobody here even argues that the subject is not notable. If anybody has doubts about notability look for example at:, , , , . Look also at human rights organizations: Human Rights Foundation, Amnesty international.
 * This page is not a fork. As written in the introduction of WP:POVFORK, a fork consists in creating "several separate articles all treating the same subject". This is not the case here. Obviously, Political prisoners in Venezuela represents maybe 10% of the subject of Human rights in Venezuela. It is undisputed that the page Human rights in Venezuela may include topics like: Press freedom, Globovision, Tascon List, Gender and sexual orientation equality, Human trafficking, Independence of justice, Agrarian violence, Human Rights Watch, History of Human rights, Human rights in the Constitution, Extra-judicial killings, indigenous rights etc. and many of these topics have been proposed by Rd232 himself. If it were a fork, then any page that deals with a topic that is part of a broader subject which has also a page would be a fork. Voui (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You dropped the discussion of dispute resolution of this content at Talk:Human rights in Venezuela, and created this POV fork instead (you quote the definition of a content fork). The rest is wikilawyering (actual wikilawyering, unlike your rejection of my request that you either cease assuming bad faith or initiate some form of dispute resolution). Rd232 talk 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to be a POV fork, it must first be a fork. See the introduction of WP:POVFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created" etc. Since this page is not a fork, it cannot be a POV fork. Again this is not the right forum for a dispute resolution. I do not agree with what you say but I will not answer and take the risk of transforming this discussion into an unuseful confrontation. This discussion is about a page deletion, not about dispute resolution. Why not just talk calmly and nicely about the page for deletion itself? Voui (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: on a completely separate issue than my nomination, all categories of type "Political prisoners in..." seem to have been deleted in 2008 for WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_17. Others had been deleted previously: Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_22. The same definitional/POV issue would seem to apply. Rd232 talk 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the request to delete was that it was a fork! Now your argument is that it is NPOV and OR! Voui (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at the history of edit warring at Human rights in Venezuela this is clearly a WP:POVFORK and it is seems disingenious to suggest otherwise. This article should be deleted; whether any of it is subsequently incorporated into the original should be decided at WP:DRR. I42 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you say, I find offensive and against WP:AGF. This is not "disingenious" but only natural that, after looking deeply at an article, and after having argued about it, you reflect that creating a specific page on a specific subject makes sense. Again this is not a fork. WP:POVFORK explains that a POV fork is a specific point of view fork. And this is not a point of view fork, because a point of view fork is "several separate articles all treating the same subject". We are not here to attack but to discuss serious arguments about wikipedia policy. Voui (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you tone down your argumentative stance and respect the opinion of an uninvolved and unbiased editor. I have reviewed this page and its history and I see quite clearly that agreement could not be reached on including the material at Human rights in Venezuela and it has been forked into this separate article instead. I also see that you and rd232 are conducting a battle over several different articles. I suggest that if it continues either or both of you is likely to be sanctioned. I42 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * E pur si muove! Voui (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of things going in all directions here (sometimes a bit hostile) but let's come back please to the fundamentals: the request for deletion is based on the accusation that the page is POV fork. This accusation does not stand: this is not POV fork because for that, the two pages would have to have some similar subject. See the introduction of WP:POVFORK. And nobody disputes that these pages do not relate to a similar subject: Political prisoners in Venezuela represents like 10% of the scope of Human rights in Venezuela. They cannot be a similar subject. I find incredible that nobody who wishes to delete this page answers to this fundamental issue … There should be some rights of the defense to be heard. But the defense arguments are not even heard: no counterargument or discussion, nothing. Weird!

Voui (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if Political prisoners in Venezuela is only duplicating a section within Human rights in Venezuela, it is still a fork. There is no requirement that the forked article cover 100% of the parent - indeed the policy you cite makes that clear: "If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory". So yes, this is a fork. I42 (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your example is not valid: the only reason why this is a fork in your example is that there is a consensus of editors that "heavier than air flight" is impossible. But here, this is different: nobody denies that there are political prisoners in Venezuela! Frankly, what is sad here is that this page may be deleted for wrong reasons.
 * Well of course it's not exactly the same example. But the principle is the same: disagreement on one article, so the editor fighting consensus creates a fork instead. In this case you were edit warring at Human rights in Venezuela, kept getting reverted, and forked the content here instead. I42 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you say is not true:
 * - "the editor is fighting consensus"? There was no consensus but only 2 editors (JRSP and Rd232) fighting to guard their page against changes they did not like. Not a consensus!
 * - the editor "creating a fork instead": no. The page created did NOT intend to replace the other page. The topic of political prisoners in Venezuela is a big subject that deserves its own page.
 * Voui (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you delete also the page I created: Maria Lourdes Afiuni? Before I created it, this page was also a paragraph refused by JRSP and by Rd232 in Eligio Cedeno. See here for example: . They refuse nearly anything that is against the Chavez government so any new page that is created regarding a matter linked to Venezuelan politics can be seen as a POV fork by definition. Voui (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be worth looking at. But it has no bearing here. I42 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Last word of the defense

I created this article, this has represented some real work. The debate will end tomorrow and normally, in a court of law, the last word is for the defense. So let me put it this way: the point is not why this article has been created, if it has been created for such or such purpose etc. The point is: does this page cover a subject that is notable? The answer is clearly yes. Again see for example, , ,. Right or wrong this is a notable subject and this is not in the interest of our encyclopedia to delete an article about a clearly notable subject. Voui (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough news coverage of this to prove its notability.  D r e a m Focus  13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic is notable per the news coverage. This topic deserves its own article, because Venezuela is currently under the rule of a neo-socialist, economic freedom is under threat and human rights abuses rampant. Defender of torch (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough reliable sources to establish notability according to G.News. Note, that the Human rights in Venezuela article only has one sentence about political prisioners, so this is far from being a POV fork. AfD should not be used to resolve content disputes. --Jmundo (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (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.