This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to El Salvador. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|El Salvador|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to El Salvador. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to
Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Speedy redirect/merge to
Nayib_Bukele#Presidency. Don't make articles just for the sake of making articles. Inaugurations do not automatically need a standalone page.
Reywas92Talk 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is an acceptable outcome in lieu of an outright deletion.
– robertsky (
talk) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I haven't even delved into the Spanish sources but there is lots of
WP:RSWP:SIGCOV in English alone, including of the event itself (
Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
AP,
Al Jazeera), guests (
MercoPress,
Politico,
Deseret News,
Xinhua), international reactions (
AP), plus the bomb plot (
AP,
Reuters) mentioned by the nominator. I'm sure there's even more in Spanish. Now that the event has happened, there's plenty of coverage to support a standalone page.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 23:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
On the sources you have raised here:
Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
AP,
Al Jazeera these are some of what I referred to when I wrote most of the sources are not about the inauguration but the current affairs of nation. If it is about the event itself, I would expect significant coverage about the event itself and not a majority of the content of each source about the state of affairs in the country, his management style, and the challenges ahead for him or the country.
Guest list is the least of consideration for notability of the event. Notability is not inherited, nor this page should be a guest list as well, which some had tried to turn this page into (see
WP:NOTDIR and also
WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Nothing in the sources here (
MercoPress,
Politico,
Deseret News,
Xinhua) is of anything significant about the event except that 'X had attended".
(
AP) that is an reaction to the president's management in his term (in my opinion, might be worthy of a split from his main article if extended further).
bomb plot. further details than what has been provided currently is required. otherwise by itself, it is a news report.
Like any good news source, the coverage will situate the event in its context. In fact, under
WP:NEVENTS, such sources should be "in-depth coverage [that] includes analysis that puts events into context." Each article I cited devotes several paragraphs (up to half the article) specifically to inaugural events and the rest to the context. As for guests, inauguration pages on WP almost universally cover international guest attendance. See (as just a few examples)
Inauguration of Lai Ching-te,
Second inauguration of Goodluck Jonathan,
Inauguration of Bernardo Arévalo, and so forth. (And every source I provided is
WP:RS for this kind of news and provides significant coverage of the attendance and the dynamics around it.) Finally, the alleged bomb plot was part of the preparations for the inauguration and belongs in such an article. Unless you're trying to say that presidential inaugurations are inherently non-notable topics, in which case you need to propose an SNG, it's clear that this subject clears the tests imposed by
WP:GNG and
WP:NEVENTS.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no need for a separate SNG. The entire
WP:NEVENTS has to be taken into consideration, not just the coverage of the event. Coverage is a given, after all it is a planned event directly after the election:
Points to consider:
Is there a lasting effect from the inauguration as an event? None so far.
Is there a significant impact of the inauguration as an event? None so far.
What's the depth of the coverage of the event? Surface level. What was the planning? What happened during the inauguration? Who/What agencies were involved in the planned? Why was there a change in the venue? What was said during the inauguration. As argued before, the analysis is already written for in the general elections page, and the inauguration is the result of the general election. There is no need for a separate article as such.
What's the duration of the coverage? Immediate after the event, no further news coverage that I can find in the 7 days since the inauguration.
What's the diversity of sources? Diverse but same set of talking points.
And with respect to inauguration as a planned event. Is the coverage a routine coverage? Yes. One would expect major news outlets to cover a planned national level event as part of their routine news cycle.
As for the other inauguration pages,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But if I may, these pages are likely going to be evaluated in the same manner for AfD.
– robertsky (
talk) 04:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider:
1/2. Is there a lasting effect/significant impact from the inauguration? Bukele remains president, so yes. The swearing-in is required under the constitution and thus it has an ongoing effect. The election is the predicate for this event, but it is not identical to the inauguration and it has no effect if the inauguration does not take place according to constitutional procedure. (This is
3. See below in my comments on the Spanish language sources, but the depth of coverage is sufficient to meet this test.
4/5. We are 10 days out from the event, which NEVENTS makes clear is not too soon for an event to become notable. But the event has been covered beyond the initial day or two of news, and it has been covered in a variety of sources in both English and Spanish, with both straight news and opinion coverage.
NPR discusses the inauguration's influence on the Biden administration's immigration policy.
LoveFM provides skeptical coverage of Belizean participation in the inauguration.
Semafor covered the inauguration in light of Claudia Sheinbaum's election in Mexico.
6. It definitely goes beyond routine coverage with substantial detailed mentions in the U.S. political press as well as the press in Spain. It's not just wire services and Salvadoran press covering this.
(P.S. Please read carefully: I didn't cite the other inauguration pages as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for notability of this subject. I cited them to point out that these types of pages generally cover international guests, which demonstrates a longstanding consensus that guests are a significant aspect of inaugurations. Thus,
WP:RS coverage of inauguration guests contributes to the notability of the subject matter.)
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 07:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: How much has the article really changed since
its previous iteration? I still do think this was recreated by a certain LTA block evading, though I can't say for certain.
jellyfish✉ 04:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The infobox remained the same; all sections you see now were there as well, unfilled; the international guests section was unfilled (naturally, since it was before the event).
This is the lead in the last deleted revision for evaluation:
WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people.
Let'srun (
talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria.
SportingFlyerT·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep—Likewise falls under
WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such.
Anwegmann (
talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here.
Let'srun (
talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough.
Svartner (
talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unneccessary
WP:FORK of
Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published
Mztourist (
talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the
Football War article. (
talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You can't both delete and merge an article.
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 00:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to El Salvador. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|El Salvador|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to El Salvador. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to
Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Speedy redirect/merge to
Nayib_Bukele#Presidency. Don't make articles just for the sake of making articles. Inaugurations do not automatically need a standalone page.
Reywas92Talk 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is an acceptable outcome in lieu of an outright deletion.
– robertsky (
talk) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I haven't even delved into the Spanish sources but there is lots of
WP:RSWP:SIGCOV in English alone, including of the event itself (
Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
AP,
Al Jazeera), guests (
MercoPress,
Politico,
Deseret News,
Xinhua), international reactions (
AP), plus the bomb plot (
AP,
Reuters) mentioned by the nominator. I'm sure there's even more in Spanish. Now that the event has happened, there's plenty of coverage to support a standalone page.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 23:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
On the sources you have raised here:
Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
AP,
Al Jazeera these are some of what I referred to when I wrote most of the sources are not about the inauguration but the current affairs of nation. If it is about the event itself, I would expect significant coverage about the event itself and not a majority of the content of each source about the state of affairs in the country, his management style, and the challenges ahead for him or the country.
Guest list is the least of consideration for notability of the event. Notability is not inherited, nor this page should be a guest list as well, which some had tried to turn this page into (see
WP:NOTDIR and also
WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Nothing in the sources here (
MercoPress,
Politico,
Deseret News,
Xinhua) is of anything significant about the event except that 'X had attended".
(
AP) that is an reaction to the president's management in his term (in my opinion, might be worthy of a split from his main article if extended further).
bomb plot. further details than what has been provided currently is required. otherwise by itself, it is a news report.
Like any good news source, the coverage will situate the event in its context. In fact, under
WP:NEVENTS, such sources should be "in-depth coverage [that] includes analysis that puts events into context." Each article I cited devotes several paragraphs (up to half the article) specifically to inaugural events and the rest to the context. As for guests, inauguration pages on WP almost universally cover international guest attendance. See (as just a few examples)
Inauguration of Lai Ching-te,
Second inauguration of Goodluck Jonathan,
Inauguration of Bernardo Arévalo, and so forth. (And every source I provided is
WP:RS for this kind of news and provides significant coverage of the attendance and the dynamics around it.) Finally, the alleged bomb plot was part of the preparations for the inauguration and belongs in such an article. Unless you're trying to say that presidential inaugurations are inherently non-notable topics, in which case you need to propose an SNG, it's clear that this subject clears the tests imposed by
WP:GNG and
WP:NEVENTS.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no need for a separate SNG. The entire
WP:NEVENTS has to be taken into consideration, not just the coverage of the event. Coverage is a given, after all it is a planned event directly after the election:
Points to consider:
Is there a lasting effect from the inauguration as an event? None so far.
Is there a significant impact of the inauguration as an event? None so far.
What's the depth of the coverage of the event? Surface level. What was the planning? What happened during the inauguration? Who/What agencies were involved in the planned? Why was there a change in the venue? What was said during the inauguration. As argued before, the analysis is already written for in the general elections page, and the inauguration is the result of the general election. There is no need for a separate article as such.
What's the duration of the coverage? Immediate after the event, no further news coverage that I can find in the 7 days since the inauguration.
What's the diversity of sources? Diverse but same set of talking points.
And with respect to inauguration as a planned event. Is the coverage a routine coverage? Yes. One would expect major news outlets to cover a planned national level event as part of their routine news cycle.
As for the other inauguration pages,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But if I may, these pages are likely going to be evaluated in the same manner for AfD.
– robertsky (
talk) 04:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider:
1/2. Is there a lasting effect/significant impact from the inauguration? Bukele remains president, so yes. The swearing-in is required under the constitution and thus it has an ongoing effect. The election is the predicate for this event, but it is not identical to the inauguration and it has no effect if the inauguration does not take place according to constitutional procedure. (This is
3. See below in my comments on the Spanish language sources, but the depth of coverage is sufficient to meet this test.
4/5. We are 10 days out from the event, which NEVENTS makes clear is not too soon for an event to become notable. But the event has been covered beyond the initial day or two of news, and it has been covered in a variety of sources in both English and Spanish, with both straight news and opinion coverage.
NPR discusses the inauguration's influence on the Biden administration's immigration policy.
LoveFM provides skeptical coverage of Belizean participation in the inauguration.
Semafor covered the inauguration in light of Claudia Sheinbaum's election in Mexico.
6. It definitely goes beyond routine coverage with substantial detailed mentions in the U.S. political press as well as the press in Spain. It's not just wire services and Salvadoran press covering this.
(P.S. Please read carefully: I didn't cite the other inauguration pages as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for notability of this subject. I cited them to point out that these types of pages generally cover international guests, which demonstrates a longstanding consensus that guests are a significant aspect of inaugurations. Thus,
WP:RS coverage of inauguration guests contributes to the notability of the subject matter.)
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 07:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: How much has the article really changed since
its previous iteration? I still do think this was recreated by a certain LTA block evading, though I can't say for certain.
jellyfish✉ 04:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The infobox remained the same; all sections you see now were there as well, unfilled; the international guests section was unfilled (naturally, since it was before the event).
This is the lead in the last deleted revision for evaluation:
WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people.
Let'srun (
talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria.
SportingFlyerT·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep—Likewise falls under
WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such.
Anwegmann (
talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here.
Let'srun (
talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough.
Svartner (
talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unneccessary
WP:FORK of
Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published
Mztourist (
talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the
Football War article. (
talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You can't both delete and merge an article.
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 00:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply