Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisoners of the Revolt

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. While there appears to be some agreement that the content should be merged back to the parent article, there isn't sufficient consensus here to do that immediately. If desired, a proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of the Revolt

Prisoners of the Revolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article refers, in general, to people who have been kept in prison for a longer-than-usual time because of presumed crimes during the 2019-2021 Chilean protests. I don't believe there should be a separate article when the topic can be summarized in the protests articles (because... they may have been detained because of their participation in these protests, in the first place). Subject is not notable enough to merit an article for itself. It should be merged into the article on the protests. Kuatrero (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion is Anti-Barricade Law under the same grounds. Kuatrero (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article is not taking a stance if they may or may not be or done X thing. The article discusses a topic that originated with the 2019-2021 Chilean protests but has now transcended it and has become a political topic in Chile in its own right. The fact that a large number of Chilean politicians, the President of the Constitutional Convention Elisa Loncón and media such as Emol, El Mostrador, Radio Bío-Bío and Radio Universidad de Chile have discussed it clearly points that this is a topic of interest in the present-day national debate in Chile, not something that has practically ended like the 2019-2021 Chilean protests. Its also worth noting that there is a number of 2090 Chilean protest-related topics that have their own articles such as Primera Línea, October 2019 Chilean protest march, Anti-Barricade Law etc. Merging them into 2019-2021 Chilean protests would clearly make the article unmanageable. Also, be aware that Kuatrero attempted to delete the content[1] without any previous discussion and not merge as he is claiming now. Kuatrero should clarify his stance. Dentren | ^Talk 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to the detainees at the protests as "prisoners of the revolt", but that doesn't make them a topic that deserves an article in their own right. They can still be described in the protests article. Regarding your last comment, yes, I attempted to redirect the article because I don't think it merits to exist. In fact, it only summarizes some comments related to the "prisoners of the revolt" without actually describing in extent who are these "prisoners of the revolt", which should be the main topic (?). I do not oppose having information about this topic, but where it belongs: the protests' article. Please note that Dentren is the article creator. --Kuatrero (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, by the same reason Kuatrero said before. Also, as "Prisioners of the Revolt" is a name that's used by a specific political group to express a specific political opinion over this theme, I think we should add the information in the protest's article under a more neutral name (e.g., "Controversy about alleged political prisioners"). Regards, James2813 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still should be merged into the protests' article. I agree calling them "prisoners of the revolt" (being myself a left-winger) is biased and should not be used while purposing it to be neutral, when it's not. --Kuatrero (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending to delete this article because it is not neutral would be like deleting Neoliberalism because it is not a fully neutral term (market liberals and much of the Worldwide right reject the label "neoliberal"). It makes no sense to adduce to a non-neutrality of the term when there is no alternative concept and the term is already in wide circulation among mass media. Let me remind you all that the common Spanish name for the 2019–2021 Chilean protests, Estallido Social was also originally "left-wing" and just like Presos de la Revuelta it diffused becoming the standard term. At the end of the day widespread use triumphs non-neutral origin (WP:Non-neutral but common names). Dentren | ^Talk 06:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, respectfully, you're missing the point. Not only it's article is non neutral and biased, it's subject is also non notable enough to merit a separate article. Merge. Kuatrero (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the use of the term in mass media is always linked to a so-called by the List of the People or similar acclaration. The sole use of this name as common denotes a political position. Also, I would like to clarify that I got confused: I agree with the deletion of the article, not of the content. As so, Merge. James2813 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and Anti-Barricade Law into 2019-2021 Chilean protests, I guess. Article also seems pretty slanted against the Chilean government, though I don't know much about the politics there to know whether that's a good thing to me or not; regardless, that's POV. If this doesn't get merged, Anti-Barricade Law definitely should, since it's two lines. AdoTang (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Delete. Rename article to "Prisoners of the 2019–2020 Chilean protests". Dentren's argument makes more sense as the scope of the "prisoners of the revolt" extends beyond the protests, but I would recommend a renaming of the article to more clearly identify what it is about. Deleting or merging and summarizing this well-referenced encyclopedic article into the main protests article seems like an attempt at censorship based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so word of caution to the wise.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The topic is clearly relevant, being one of the first topics discussed by the Constitutional Convention. It is a controversy developing in Chile and has its own merit to be an article separated from the protests. However, I think it probably should be extended to cover the different allegations of human rights violations during the protests. After all, if the prisoners are political prisoners (or not) is a controversy of human rights. -B1mbo (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I believe that separate articles are unnecessary. While the information in the Anti-Barricade Law and Prisoners of the Revolt articles is useful, this information can easily be included in the 2019-2021 Chilean protests article. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Anti-Barricade Law is to be considered for a merge, it should be into Penal Code of Chile, as the law has despite its origin an existence separate to the 2019 protests. As the article states the Anti-Barricade Law has been discussed in the light of subsequent protests such as the truck driver's strike of August 2020 which has not much to do with the 2019 protests. Dentren | ^Talk 11:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is more logical. Thank you. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dentren, MarshalN20 and B1mbo. The 14 inline cites appended to the article confirm its positioning as a stand-alone entry, instead of being subsumed into the 100,242-byte entry for 2019–2021 Chilean protests. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 July 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.