Talk:Assassination of Fernando Villavicencio

Should not be a separate article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Wait. Closing discussion after two months have passed with no new input after a rough consensus was established with more users wanting to wait for more information/"clarity" or who opposed the merge outright. Another discussion to merge now that time has passed would likely determine a more clear consensus on the length and notability concerns raised by supporters. Yeoutie (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Villavicencio's BLP article is nowhere close to length or importance to make a separate article on the assassination necessary, because now you're going to be basically duplicating much of the background and events of the assassination on both pages. At least at this point, it is not like the scale of Assassination of Shinzo Abe, and while there is a weak chance it might be, it needs to be shown that really is the case. Masem (t) 03:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, I feel that the assassination (at least at this time given the sources/info we have) does not warrant its own article. I think Villavicencio's article covers it just fine. I either think this article should be merged with Villavicencio's article or should become a draft article until further details are known. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• I also agree. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• My heart sank when I saw a separate assassination article had been created. Insert everything from the "assassination" subhead back into the biography article? Should be done quickly if it's going to be done, before the two diverge further. But -- devil's advocate -- mainpage disruption; loss of background information; biography would get very bottom-heavy; a boat that has already sailed? Moscow Mule (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the boat has already sailed, but in terms of the mainpage disruption, we could always change the target article to Villavicencio's article, especially since the article is well sourced and has no issues. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm for a merge. I think a lot of the content here is barebones, so most of it that directly pertains to Villavicencio can be inserted back into his article anyways, while other components can go to their corresponding ones, such as the Ecuadorian security crisis and whatnot. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the BLP article should cover both. Theres no length or topic reason for a split Softlemonades (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The asasination article should be merged into the main article --HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since this has been converted to a formal merge request, proc. close per WP:SK#6. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wait for a while per wikipedia:RUSHDELETE. In addition to that, there might be a long aftermath as there is now according to secondary sources “chaos” in the country and “Police and army have been called in for the safety of the Ecuadorians”. That are topics for this article, not for the Fernando Villavicencio article. 109.38.154.37 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't agree. Please post the guide where does it says how long does an assassination article has to be so it can be a separate article. You only "feel" that? Your heart sank? Martiniturbide (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I Also Don't Agree. This is a Serious Event. This Should Get it's own Page. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• WP:CONSPLIT is the primary one here. I have explained that due to how short the BLP article is relative to news of this assassination, there wasn't a size issue to include the assassination there, and furthere, there is now significant overlap between the BLP and this assassination article, which is an upkeeping nightmare. To add, Villavicencio has somewhat limited notability before this, but the assassination is what is going to make him clearly notable in the future, so it doesn't make sense to split that off. Masem (t) 00:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. A separate article is not warranted. A search of Wikipedia shows that virtually all articles titled with "Assassination of ..." are about prominent world leaders at the time of their assassination. This is a sad event, however for consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the assassination of a candidate, not a leader, should not warrant its own article. Include therelevant details in the Fernando Villavicencio article, expanding it as appropriate. Truthanado (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy? 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  This seems to me to be a false equivalence and a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as RFK's assassination definitely meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria as he was a part of a list of political officials assassinated in the 1960s. While it may still be wise to hold off on judgements, do note that. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  And Fernando Villavicencio is part of a list of political officials assassinated in the 2020s. My point is more that "consistency with other Wikipedia articles" shouldn't in my mind be considered a strong argument, because no such consistency of "only assassinations of world leaders receive standalone articles" actually seems to exist. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:A468:F8F8:B0F1:6EA9 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. As per WP:RUSHDELETE don't rush to delete. The politician is notable for more than his death, so I see logic to having a biographical article. And his death is a global news event that is likely to continue to be so, and seems likely to pass WP:GNG. So I think keeping both seems logical and the clarity about that will be clearer as the days pass. So, wait and see. CT55555(talk) 01:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I do not agree, cause this event is part of the crisis that Ecuador is suffering. The political stability and relationships of Ecuador with other countries in the region could be thrown into turmoil by the assassination of a prominent figure. Such a high-profile event may provoke more intense scrutiny of the government's actions towards indigenous populations, and may ignite additional uprisings and discord. The repercussions of Villaviencio's death hold great potential for affecting Ecuador's connections with other nations, particularly with those that have strong bonds with indigenous communities. In response, there may be condemnation and even sanctions from select countries towards the actions of Ecuador's government. By and large, the assassination of Fernando Villaviencio carries weighty geopolitical consequences for Ecuador and the global community as a whole. A prompt investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators by the government is necessary to quell potential turmoil and insecurity within the country. Gabriel A. Álvarez N. (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per @Gabriel A. Álvarez N. Abo Yemen✉ 11:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge Yet another instance of this user rushing to create unnecessary new articles. The main article is by no means long enough to have needed to be split, and now there's substantial duplication between them that's a disservice to readers. No matter how immportant you think this was, that importance can be conveyed in the Fernando Villavicencio article, and then split when warranted by length, which is not yet shown. Reywas92^Talk 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're willing to turn this into a personal attack: yet another instance of an eagerness to merge pages where there are plenty of citations here to support the article. By the logic you have conveyed in practically every one of these discussions, Assassination of Shinzo Abe and Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II shouldn't have been created within the hour because there wasn't enough information about their deaths at that time. Not sure why articles have to be merged immediately save for systemic issues that can't be resolved in several days' time. Users adding information from one article to the other is not my responsibility. If this is an issue, you are free to remove any extraneous content. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have created this article if there weren't additional injuries. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait There are good arguments on both sides to support deletion and to wait. Though I believe that traditionally assassinations typically belong in the article of the person killed, this could be a bit different as it is leading to other events. Though different, this could warrant a separate article as the killing of George Floyd led to other serious events and warranted its own article. There is no harm in waiting to see where the chips fall and in a week or two a better decision could be made as there will be more information.

Jurisdicta (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not agree, this article may gain more usefulness as news continues to break. 203.30.4.243 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - Previous articles on magnicide and deaths of other significant political figures have been notable enough to stand alone as an article having just occurred, and I don't see this one being any different. The assassination has already occurred, but this is still a developing situation and it would be a prolonged period of time before it can be determined whether enough information from reliable sources can be retrieved in order to keep this as a standalone article.

BurgeoningContracting 03:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously there aren't any secondary sources now, since all sources date from the time of the event, but this is far more likely to attract secondary coverage than your typical "Murder of Randomperson" rubbish article; when leading political candidates are assassinated, political effects tend to occur, and political scientists tend to study the incident afterward. Best to wait a couple of years and see if this is covered by actual secondary sources, like books and academic journals. Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait at least until the news cycle has passed. No need to rush this. NM 13:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, as mentioned above the killing could have consequences in the country's affairs. Let's see how this evolves in the following days. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wait The subject of the article currently meets the guidelines for notability, easily passing both GNG and NEVENT. That said, the long-term significance may prove to be insufficient to justify a standalone page. Let's see where things are in a year or so. As noted by others, there's no real rush here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wait In events like this, Wiki history has always shown it's best to wait a while to decide what is best. I would have thought that something like this is important in Ecuadorian history and politics and would warrant its own article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.