Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal: Mccapra ( talk ) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Portugal , Spain ,  and South America .  Mccapra ( talk ) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Mccapra.  This is not a "Bizzare essay" nor does it duplicate material already covered at the Spanish wars of independence.  You can certainly find that the point of this Article is precisely what the title points to,  meaning it gives the user who read it a complete run down of the sequences of events that led to the separation.  The article you mentioned, doesn't cover a lot of the things covered here, and focuses particularly on the war it self.  If you have any doubt about it, try to ctrl+f every single data shown, explained, and sourced in this article to see if you find them all covered in the article you mentioned, which by the way, although it gives a background, it focuses heavily on what it title indicates, which is the wars of independence themselves, not the point this article I'm making focuses on, which are the broader sequences of events that led to the separation.  What this is, is an article that has just been created, therefore, as indicated in the history of it, it requires polishing, and will constantly be updated, given the fact it's a new article in which I'm working on.  Thank you for your time.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 00:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Very essay-like, effectively the same content from other articles, and filled with "See Article X ", which are all just longer forms of what was mentioned.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please execute the same exercise that I mentioned to the user above (ctrl+f) every single thing this article features, and do a simple comparison based on the results, which I can assures you, won't be the same.  Have a good one.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 00:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, delete per nom.  Drmies ( talk ) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Provide one article that explains (and provide proof, of course, or showcase, that such linked article explains and accomplishes the objective the title of this article enunciates, which of course, would need to have the majority of things mentioned here more than 90% of them, and explained and sourced correctly within each other), and sources the same things as this one, or that executes the same objective as this one, which is the complete rundown of key events that led to the separation, and I will delete it my self, since if an article accomplished the same purpose as the this one, then there's no need to create another one.  Also, just for the record, keep it mind it's a WIP (Work In Progress) which requires polishing.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 01:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per above.  It is not clear to me that this article has a good reason to exist, as it mostly summarizes content we already have, and the title is extremely verbose, nearly to the point of satire.  I am unable to understand what the article's creator is saying in this discussion.  Perhaps instead of "delete" I should say I recommend that the closer of this discussion regardless of whoever they may be to make all possible haste in re deletory actions videlicet the enactment of a resolute and concrete and entirely possibly unanimous consensus to delete as erstwhile reached by the participants of this selfsame aforementioned discussion a priori mutatis mutandis quantum ergo sum propter quod et faciendum .  jp × g 03:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you can't understand what I'm saying, then the only thing to say is that that's sad.  As much as it's sad you can't see why this article should exist.  Put in basic words, for basic beings: You need to provide with an article, almost 90% like this one, with as much info and the same sources as this one (if it's not clear, I need to rephrase, and given your answer, I'm sure it's required), to at least sustain the reason for the deletion.  You guys are giving Wikipedia an amazing reputation.  I'm also sorry if you couldn't get the sarcasm in that last bit there.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 04:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I am indeed a basic being, so I may need you to explain to me in some more detail which policy or guideline your "90% like this one" is based on; I have participated in a few hundred deletion discussions and I have never heard of this.  jp × g 19:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Copied from the answer above your comment: "Provide one article that explains (and provide proof, of course, or showcase, that such linked article explains and accomplishes the objective the title of this article enunciates, which of course, would need to have the majority of things mentioned here."  That would show me this article is redundant and should be deleted.  The quoted "Spanish American Wars of independence" by many here, doesn't have the information this article provides, when I say 90% it obviously means at least 90% of the things you see in this one, should be there, so that it tells me: "Oh no, this article is redundant, and should be deleted".  And then, I will delete, because there's no point in creating an article that provides information for a particular title/purpose, that another article already has.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 02:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Incoherent and ungrammatical and seems to have no argument as to why the events (loosely!) covered lead to rather than merely precede the loss of the Spanish colonies.   Anything which could fall within the scope of this article could be part of the context section of Spanish American wars of independence ; a separate article risks a content fork.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 11:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Talks about a "horrible mess" and being "ungrammatical" yet, writes: "Incoherent and ungrammatical and seems to".  And if you believe there's no argument, or have any doubts as to why they lead there, maybe you should reconsider participating in something such as editing Wikipedia, that requires something called "Comprehension".  I hope you manage to read well, and have a good one.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per nom, weirdly long title notwithstanding, this is just an essay which cites other articles.  WP:ESSAY is in effect here.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I don't understand the selection criteria for this article. One of the most prominently featured events in this article is the Voyage of the Glorioso , which consisted of British attacks on a Spanish ship in the Azores and off the coasts of Spain and Portugal, in 1747, during a war between Spain and Great Britain . What that has to do with the independence of the Spanish American colonies from Spain, which took place more than 50 years later, remains unclear to me. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read, you would be able to see.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 21:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken , I hope you don't think that all these comments, the badgering and the trolling, is helping your case.  Drmies ( talk ) 23:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What "badgering" and "trolling" are you referring to?  Please provide proof of the claims you make.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 02:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And what comments?  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 02:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, insinuating that the only person in this discussion with a non-elementary school level of reading comprehension would be one of these comments.  AryKun ( talk ) 04:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, we already have Spanish American wars of independence, and the independence of Brazil doesn't really seem related.  Not really a rationale for deletion, but also that title is just straight out of xkcd.  AryKun ( talk ) 06:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. Spanish American Wars of independence doesn't get close (not even 70%. Have doubts? Go ahead, copy and paste almost all info you see here exactly from there, fulfilling the objective that the title of this article enunciates, and automatically telling me, with something called proof, that I should delete, which, as much as your peers in this page, you haven't noticed this has already been addressed, and currently, no answer has been given, because there's no way they can copy and paste the same thing, simply because the constantly quoted article "Spanish American Wars of independence" doesn't have it, nor does any other article like this one exists, so that they could take it from there) to the the information you see here, so, to date, this article is not redundant.  2. Brazil's independence is obviously related, have you even read the title of the article?  How do you expect it to not be related when one of the objectives of the title is literally Brazil's independence?  You are clearly looking at something else in your head.  3. Brazil's independence is a direct effect, and interconnected in consequence with the whole thing, maybe if you read the paragraph where it's mentioned you would be able to see that.  4. I don't even think you can suggest a better name, mainly because you clearly didn't even read the article, not even the tile.  Have a good one.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 01:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Will you stop bludgeoning people with the same walls of text, all of which are poorly reasoned?  Of course the Spanish American wars of independence doesn't cover everything in this article; you've added random wars from the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s here (including the start of Spanish colonization, which leads to the end of Spanish colonization how?).  As for Brazil, you know that it isn't related, since you mention it once (in the form of a naval commander) throughout the article.  This article is a badly written timeline of the history of Spanish America; in essence, you've made a worse History of Latin America .  AryKun ( talk ) 06:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you stop copy pasting the same poorly reasoned text as your peers?  It's not my problem that your lack of reading comprehension is an issue that directly affects how you understand what you read.  The history of Spanish America is not remotely close to what this article points to, this article points towards what it's title enunciates, and the history of Spanish America is an entirely different thing, which your basic understanding doesn't manage to get.  At this point it's clear you don't read at all, nor comprehend minimal things, since you keep insisting Brazil's independence isn't related when it's literally one of the points the title of this article points to, of course it needs to be addressed, as well as it's relationship with everything else, (what thing are you thinking about instead of this article's title?) I mentioned Brazil the times it needs to be mentioned, not once as you claim.  Please, make yourself a favor, and learn to read correctly, although given your responses it won't happen since it's clearly also a comprehension issue, so I'm no sure you'll even manage to get this, that I just typed.  The start of Spanish colonization?  I mentioned New Spain, which is not the start, nor is Pedro.  They are both mentioned as it's necessary to start the article enunciating the places the title directly refers to, Pedro is there to globalize the concept of any other place other than New Spain in the Americas, I was not going to say "The viceroyalty of this, then this, then that, was created, in this, and that".  Please go and inform yourself prior to typing such ridicule texts.  At least this whole thing gives me an idea of which Wikipedia users are not even fit to comprehend what they read.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment nom's intense badgering aside, it looks like it's snowing .  AryKun ( talk ) 04:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note, I won't be replying to your comment here if it says the same as the ones above, which has already been addressed over, and over again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk • contribs ) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The same content can just be (and have already been) covered in other articles concerning the Americas around this time period.  The choice of writing about New Spain's AND Brazil's separation from other Spanish colonies seem very odd, since they happened for different reasons and the article did not make much correlation to justify why they're discussed together.  As an article, it's pretty redundant.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to address the things from this comment that aren't addressed in the one/s above you.  "choice of writing about New Spain's AND Brazil's separation from other Spanish colonies seem very odd" it's not odd, because they did happen for the same reason, and that's why this article specifies as soon as you start reading it that it's a series of key linked events that led to the separation.  I recommend re-reading if you can't see what links them.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 02:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Because the article is not what its title says.   It implies that it is about the wars of independence, but it is actually Foreign attacks on New Spain and Brazil and it does not even do that well, as it says little about the Dutch West India Company's attempts to take over Brazil during the Dutch Eighty Years War .   It is just a bad WP:ESSAY stinging together a lot of largely unrelated facts.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You think this is about foreign attacks on New Spain and brazil?  Wikipedia certainly has a lot of users that can't even comprehend what they read.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 22:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and the other well-reasoned responses.  Unimpressed by the arguments put forth by the article's creator.  Intothat darkness 16:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unimpressed by the lack of intellect you display as much as the previous responses you quote.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 22:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly Wikipedia:Not here .  And also lacking competence by all appearances.  Intothat darkness 01:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This page is not technically an essay, although the title would give you reason to believe so.  Nor is it a list, technically.  However, it is synthesis of original research .  It's a good question as that what exactly this is.  It's more of a cross-categorization , which is more appropriate for a journal than an encyclopedia.  In any case, it needs to be, at the least, moved to a different name.  At the most, it might need to be started from scratch .  Bearian ( talk ) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm open for name suggestions.  However, it's literally just what the title says.  Key events ordered chronologically that led to the mentioned separations.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 22:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:REDUNDANT in this essay, Avoiding Common Mistakes , Before creating a new article, run a search for the topic; you may find a related one that already exists.  Consider adding to existing articles before creating an entirely new one.  Additionally it seems like it may contain original research WP:OR or synthesis, since much of the content is unsourced.  If it is TNT'd it needs a less verbose title.  Note to Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken you are bludgeoning the process WP:BLUDGEON ; please let the AfD process unfold naturally rather than attacking other editors with whom you disagree.  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been constantly answering to the things posted by the users in this page.  I've been arguing why the things they say aren't a valid argument for the deletion of this page (The long name is certainly the only one I agree with) and I have focused on that.  Things such as the article being redundant, have already been argued against, and I have specified why it isn't redundant in my prior responses if you are interested.  There's a reason why I said "Please note, I won't be replying to your comment here if it says the same as the ones above, which has already been addressed over, and over again."  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 23:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and over and over again is exactly what WP:BLUDGEON describes.... please read it.  For your convenience the first two sentences of this essay on editor conduct: In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.  Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people.  Netherzone ( talk ) 23:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete reads like a badly-written underclassmen assignment crammed into the last day, author has synthesized unconnected topics in the hopes that it'd be passed off as coherent.  If your opening line of the timeline is Some time after... and not a specific date, then you do not have a grasp on the subject matter.  Zaathras ( talk ) 23:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Some time after" means there's no grasp?  No.  It means it's some time after, literally, and if there's dates such as 1521 (New Spain is created) to 1536 (Pedro gets to the Americas) I can choose to say "Some time after (1521) the creation of New Spain, etc" without problems.  Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken ( talk ) 23:51, 23 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete