Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état

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 per WP:SNOW, any renaming discussion can take place on the talk page. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état

Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

POV fork, having argued successfully to remove coup from the title of the main article a certain editor created this POV fork in order to reinsert the coup POV. Wikipedia has no place for POV forks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This article was never intended as a POV fork, but simply as a sub-article for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, which was otherwise becoming too long (was tagged with Template:Long). This is common practice. If you have an issue with the title (as hinted by the fact you moved it a couple of times), that's a different issue not warranting deletion. When this article was created, the main article had the "coup d'état" title and in the text, not "constitutional crisis", so it simply cannot have been a "POV fork in order to reinsert the coup POV". --LjL (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, speedy keep per WP:SK#2.4 --LjL (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge with the parent article- the subject is notable and encyclopedic, so the question isn't whether the information be deleted, but where it should be presented. Given the amount of detail put into it, I'm thinking keeping it separate would probably be best, but if it can be trimmed down and merged, thats fine too. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - This seems to be an encyclopedic article covering notable events. Coup d'état to Constitutional Crisis would mean it was in line with the main article on the event. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that the main article has been renamed as "constitutional crisis" only as a compromise, with part of the compromise being that it should have a "coup d'état section". It also says it's called a coup d'état in the first line. Part of the reasoning was basically that "constitutional crisis" would encompass more than just the "coup d'état" events; on the other hand, I think this article (and also the one about International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup, which keeps getting renamed, too) really is about the coup d'état. --LjL (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but may require cleanup - it is getting long also. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. My understanding of what happened is that "crisis" was adopted because there was so much going on in Honduras beyond the seizure of power itself by the Micheletti faction (what has been termed the "coup"), but that the prevailing international view that there had been a "coup" had not been rejected. This is why the first line of the main article reads "The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or the 2009 Honduran coup d'état..." In any case, I don't want to see what's been put on this page deleted. If the page must be deleted, the information contained on the page should be transferred back to the main article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to have detail about the coup. This was the first Latin American military coup in a long time.
  This is disingenuous: "having argued successfully to remove coup from the title of the main article a certain editor created this".
  A certain editor created this article[1] before coup was removed from the title of the other article.[2]
  This is not a "POV fork." There is a section in that other article entitled, "Coup d'état." Same "POV". -- Rico 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This page personally helped me to better understand the events of the coup. Its not a POV fork (although there may be POV in the article, I don't know), its a helpful page that better details the events of the first coup in Latin America in decades. Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If kept, this must be renamed. Since the removal of the president appears to be constitutional and legal, it's not a coup. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is a disruptive and misleading nomination by an editor who keeps renaming the article against consensus. The article is not a POV fork but a subarticle; it was spun off from 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, which a highly vocal group of editors subsequently succeeding forcing a rename of, despite a lack of clear consensus. The nominator's insistence that the same disputed renaming arguments apply to this page has not met with support on the talk page, and this deletion nomination is the result. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Unless the nominator explains why he considers the article a "POV fork". Disagreement on the article's title is no reason for deletion. JRSP (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (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.