Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block of Wikipedia 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is basically a WP:NOTNEWS violation. There is already a section on Venezuela at Censorship of Wikipedia, and that seems to be an appropriate level of coverage for this rather than a standalone article. Number 5 7 11:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily merge with 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and Censorship in Venezuela if deemed not needed, but we do have a page for Block of Wikipedia in Turkey, and the article on Spanish Wikipedia this is a translation of is getting a lot of pageviews and edits. Kingsif (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support the Turkish article being merged/deleted. The fact that something that's still in the news cycle is getting a lot of views/edits doesn't have any meaning in terms of long-term notability. Number 5 7 12:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think NOTNEWS applies, because this seems to meet WP:NEVENT. The event gotten international coverage throughout the Spanish speaking world, as well as in Israel, international website. The article has also been created on Catalan and Russian wikis. Suggest keeping for now per WP:RAPID and considering deletion later if lasting coverage doesn't occur. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS since this is a ~~current~~ ongoing event. The local chapter has pronounced against the block yesterday, on Wikipedia's anniversay, and the Wikimedia Foundation recognized the reports of the block. Not meaning to be a crystal ball, but several blocks in Venezuela to other websites have started this way, such as El Nacional, La Patilla, El Pitazo and so on. However, Wikipedia is one of the main websited accessed in the country and there are few other countries that have censored the encyclopedia. The article should be kept. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unconvinced by OP. Has sources to back it up. If you feel it is written like a news article, we could work together to rewrite the article. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Foxnpichu: The way in which the article is written isn't my concern. I just don't think there's a need for a standalone article when subject can be (and is) covered at Censorship of Wikipedia and/or Censorship in Venezuela. Number 5 7 13:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article, meets both WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS only applies for otherwise non-notable events, and is more about sourcing and formatting than notability. ^{[Username Needed]} 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(mild) delete/merge even when I am not against anything in particular about the article, I think it would be more useful if merged. The event even if widely reported, it does not seem like it would have long term notability unless the block continues for more than a month. --MaoGo (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please somebody fix the sources to include author, website, and additional information. --MaoGo (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article has good sources and is well written. I'd keep but it could also be merged with Censorship in Venezuela, but I recommend the article stays. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge The article could very well be merged with 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, but it is important enough (looking at the news coverage) to advise against a deletion. Integral Python ^{click here to argue with me} 18:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should mention that a section in the Spanish Wikipedia was started that includes comments of both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Venezuela, as well as Nicolás Maduro's comments on the edit war. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unconvinced by OP's reasoning in regards to WP:NOTNEWS. Part of having an article should take into account the historical significance of an event. Whichever way the crisis resolves, the censorship of CANTV is a major part in regards to it. If someone in 2024, per say, was looking for information on the Presidential crisis, the Wikipedia article edits along with the CANTV ban are major points in it. Since it's ongoing as we speak, I say let the article stand and we can revisit it at a later time once the dust settles.--Guiletheme (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant event, like Guiletheme I'm not persuaded either about the NOTNEWS claim. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons above. (Iuio (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NEVENT. Balkywrest (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2019 (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.