Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA activities in Honduras

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Honduras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Honduras seems to fail WP:GNG. Most of this article is primary source WP:OR; non-redundant content could be merged to Honduras–United States relations. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' Frankly, this mass deletion of half a dozen CIA related articles feels a little aggressive. I admit to not knowing much about CIA activities, but this article clearly shows that there was significant discussion of CIA activity in Honduras in the late 20th century. What is certain is that CIA articles need better sourcing and more editors. Deletion does not seem to be a good way to achieve this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, in the future I'll nominate them one at a time—is that what you want to hear? (If you admit to not knowing much about the topic, maybe you shouldn't vote.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2016 (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.