Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Intervention within El Salvador's Civil War

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Intervention within El Salvador's Civil War

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

WP:ESSAYish WP:POVFORK of Salvadoran Civil War. The lead places responsibility for 750,000 lives at the hands of the US whereas casualty estimates for the entire conflict are 70-80k. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This makes me think this is some kind of school assignment. The originator was editing almost only Central American pages (not a problem in itself) and hasn't edited since last April. The editor's sandbox includes chat with a professor.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems it was part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of Wooster/Latin America and the United States (Spring 2017).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable event for having stand alone separate page. Lorstaking (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, there are entire academic works and many news articles written specifically about US involvement in El Salvador (some of which are cited in this article). This broad coverage qualifies the topic as separately notable by the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Second, this is a valid article fork. The guideline on appropriate content forks permits "spinoff articles" to improve readability--a common practice. This article is similar in spirit to other spinoff articles about one state's involvement in conflicts such as United States in World War I, France in the American Revolutionary War, History of the United Kingdom during the First World War, etc. Finally, I agree with the nominator that there are non-neutral statements; however, there is a lot of good material here that should be improved rather than wholesale deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this could be a valid topic. I do not see much of anything salvageable from the ESSAY/POVFORK that is here beyond the title - a case of WP:TNT is in order.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of notability (it clearly meets notability guidelines) but per Icewhiz's reasoning of the need for WP:TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifnord (talk • contribs) 03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would some sort of selective merge and/or redirect be valid? I'm not sure how much of this material is already in the main article. ansh 666 07:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666: The main article does cover US involvement and aid. If any merging is done here - it would have to be extremely selective with extensive balancing. The article here is essentially an ESSAY/book-report of a few very polemic sources on the matter. There are also quite far out claims - e.g. However, Carter's involvement in Latin American issues were not popular with the general public, and helped secure his opponent's win, Ronald Reagan, in the following presidential election. (if US involvement in El Salvador or Latin American were an election issue in 1980.... It is news for United States presidential election, 1980 (which doesn't even mention either) - and Reagan wasn't a shrinking violet in terms of intervention - before or after his election... This article really is a POV mess. If someone takes this up for serious editing- the US role in El Salvador could probably be expanded, but I don't think this article does much in helping with that beyond providing a source list/summary of the far left view of the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2017 (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.