Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern dictators in Latin America

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern dictators in Latin America

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

Violates WP:POV. List of modern dictators and List of dictators have been deleted for multiple times (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern dictators), and although this list has its reference, it relies mostly one single source. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV for "dictator" criterion. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a POV exercise, sourced out to POV books. Not quite as offensive to me as List of dictatorships in that the sourcing is better, but I think the principle is the same — we are dealing with multiple historical realities here, and peas are being included with carrots, pears, avocados, tree bark, chicken dumplings, and screwdrivers in a common list as if they are all one and the same. Every historical situation is different and these are not comparable figures in terms of actual power ("ability to make a decision and cause others to comply"), which is a complex dynamic involving multiple actors in every nation-state, even the ones that seem like they are being ruled by the fiat of a single individual. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on previous discussion on deleting the previous version of List of modern dictators, the current list has directly addressed the following issues raised by other editors on the nature of listing dictators in Wikipedia.

Unreferenced (raised by User:Bonkers The Clown who submitted the previous Afd) and thus violation of WP:NOR:
- All items are now supported by at least one reliable source on the subject area of History (a specialized encyclopedia edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles).
- Additional citations are provided (see below)
- No personal opinion or judgement by Wikipedia editors, thus no violation of WP:NOR
Potentially poorly-referenced (legitimately raised by User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington potentially defamatory if citing opinion editorials)
- The entry only cites literature from history and political science.
- The main encyclopedia reference satisfies the requirement of reliable sources on the subject area of History ("A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia.").
- Some of the items can be additionally backed up by the Democracy-Dictatorship datasets, a dataset from political science literature whose methods, outcome, and its reliability and validity has been reviewed by a substantial amount of political science literature. (Note the time coverage of DD dataset is shorter)
- Some other political science and history books are used for certain items. Any one is welcome to add reliable sources.
Potential violation of WP:BLP
- All items are now supported by reliable sources from history and political science literature, and thus not a violation of WP:BLP
- I agree with User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington that opinion editorials are potentially defamatory and thus violation of WP:BLP. The current list of references contains no such material.
- I strongly suggest a policy of "no opinion editorials" for this particular list article, or similar articles of this nature.
Lack of definition of dictatorship or impossible to do so
- A paragraph is written to describe the challenge to do so. (Note that the challenge does not prevent political scientists and historians to do so. We should definitely prevent Wikipedia editors to do so per WP:NOR. However it does not suggest we can or should prevent other editors to summarize what has been published and reviewed by relevant expert communities. )
- A paragraph has quoted the criteria used by the reliable source for inclusion, thereby handling neutrality disputes per WP:SUBSTANTIATE

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanteng (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: User:hanteng has been canvassing on multiple user talk pages of those people who said "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators asking them to vote "keep" here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notify some of the discussants because they are either indefinitely blocked [7][8] or inactive[9][10] when I first quickly sent out the messages. I guess good will from Jsjsjs1111 is lacking towards me. I also sent a couple of the same messages to those that I have missed . --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 08:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DD index and other dictatorship research: garbage or not?: The DD index may be garbage in User:Carrite 's eyes, but not only it is published [11] in a peer-review journal and cited more than 500 times since its publication in 2010 [12]. (More see User_talk:Hanteng#GIGO.2C_exactly and User_talk:Carrite#but GIGO)--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 09:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was lobbied to participate as a result of participating in a previous AFD. The problem is of how one defines what is a dictatorship. Another problem is that some of the countries concerned maintain a facade of democracy, so that there is a grey area, where it is a POV issue whether it is a dictatorship or not. The present article is a list of counties quoting an index that is not explained in that article, from one (probably academic) source. "Modern" is a weazel word. How far back does it go? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -too POV. Articles like the DD index, Freedom in the World, etc. adequately convey information on current dictatorships, and a list that involves extant regimes seems potentially defamatory. Perhaps a list covering only "historical dictatorships" might make sense. Orser67 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per LibStar and Orser67.--Snorri (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Orser67. ----Omnipaedista (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so as Js.Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (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.