Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela involvement in 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 delete. Tone 10:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela involvement in regime change

Venezuela involvement in regime change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to consist mostly of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, Per NoonIcarus.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The page is sufficiently well sourced and therefore seem to be valid. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not appear to meet

WP:GNG. While the Latin American wars of independence or the Bolivarian Revolution might have enough coverage, it does not mean that the narrow topic "Venezuela involvement in regime change" does. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nominator.PailSimon (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Venezuela's interference in adjacent countries might be a better title. Many of the interferences seem in fact to have been abortive, but that does not make them NN. Its claim on Guyana was an active concern when I was a student. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a coatrack for POV-pushing. We already have an article on the Suitcase scandal and another on Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration. Trying to link more recent activities with those of different governments going back 200 years is meaningless and really a piece of SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is riddled with wp:synth and wp:or. Sources listed are mostly primary sources - very few secondary sources are present. While I get wp:DINC might be cited, I can't imagine how a rescue could be made for an article that to be frank, looks like POV-pushing. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but the article needs work related to
  talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Russian involvement in regime change is a coherent topic as it deals with the last thirty years only. The subject of this article is however pure synth. It’s the equivalent of the Russia article talking about the Great Northern War and the partitions of Poland under the heading ‘regime change’. The sources do not in fact use this term for most of the article content. Instead the creator took a current political agenda about the Chavez-Maduro regime and projected it back centuries. Also the one current example, of funding Christina de Kirchner, isn’t an example of regime change at all. Whatever it is, thus definitely isn’t an encyclopaedia article. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with previous comments that this does not appear to be a coherent topic, but a big
  WP:SYNTH affair. Some of the content on Guyana might be worth putting into Guyana–Venezuela relations, though. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment The Guyana section isn't even a "Regime change" as much as just "slightly assisting rebels of a Guyanese separatist movement." It's a mess when the citations are good, but the overall page conclusion is OR. My two cents. Estheim (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Complete SYNTH. Conflates 19th Century nationalism, with military and foreign relations across vastly different historical periods in a way which no RS supports. Editors mentioning the article contains RS are only highlighting sources discussing individual events. No single source in the article provides an over-view of Venezuela's external relations which shows a consistent pattern of support for regime change (as opposed to the ordinary, everyday actions of a state engaged in foreign relations); it is an agglomeration of incidents stitched together. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.