Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuba at a Cross Roads


 * 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. Reasonable arguments are made for and against the notability of this book per WP:NBOOK. Some time is needed to clean up the article, remove the (large amounts of) promotional and non-encylopedic content, and remove irrelevant sources. No prejudice against relisting this article at AfD after giving the authors a reasonable amount of time to work on these issues. &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuba at a Cross Roads

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional page of a book lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources listed but the article lacks good ones to show notability. Ones by the author are not independent. The Wikileaks piece does not cover this book. The press release that is referenced from three different sites that tries making the book look important by puffing up someone else is not independent. No better sources were found by me. Nothing in Notability (books) satisfied. The repeated press release and the use of multiple pieces by the author as references suggests bombardment is happening to make the book look notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of sources do you consider to be reliable? As per WP:GOODREFS I have given independent third party references to support the article. References are regarding a published book. I have taken the references from mainstream press publications and authorized web sites. Not all articles can contain references from New York Times and Washington Post. I haven't use any blogs, fan sites and stuff like that to support the article. The book is quite notable that is why I have created an article for it because it highlights some major world problems. I am well aware of the referencing criteria and this article in no way can be considered as an advertisement. This book is notable and to support the statements I have used the references again. How can that be considered as bombardment? You can check the references again for your satisfaction. --Inlandmamba (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point (after I removed wikipedia from the list of references) there is 12 reference links. 7 are written by sanz, most being book extracts. Clearly not independent. 3 more are press releases, not independent. That's 10 of the twelve. Where are the independent third party references you have claimed to have used? The only independent source that is related to the book is just a listing and does not provide coverage of the book. The piece about wikileaks is not regarding a published book. Re: Not using any blogs: What are these then?   Re: Bombardment. The page has used the same press release on two different sites   to verify the quote by Khrushchev, then used it from another site later, making it look like there is more than one source. The page used a book extract from one site  then have used the same Spanish language extract from two different sites  , making it look like there is more than one source. The page has used the same book extract from two different sites   (one a non english page when an english one was available), making it look like there is more than one source. Clearly bombardment, especial when you take into account 5 different links are all taken from the book in question. I have checked the references again and once again I see not all support the statements you have made in this page. eg. The google books listing does not support the claim that the book "is a highly detailed account of Cuban history, U.S.– Cuba relations and a polemic against the United States embargo on commerce with Cuba." It's just a listing. As per WP:GOODREFS "A citation to a reference must be accurate, i.e. it must verify the statement in the text". duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted. The Khrushchev endorsement is of historical importance to scholars and speaks volumes about the merits of the book's viewpoint. There is a dearth of English language material espousing the end of the embargo in the name of the American national interest. Balance in the public debate is sorely needed and this book helps acheive that goal. May I suggest reading the book before dismissing it as un-noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DazzBand (talk • contribs) — DazzBand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). *Do Not Delete - This work meets multiple of Wiki's notability criteria (#1 and #4) for Books. The subject is obviously academic, and the article is not commercial. Whether or not we, as editors, agree with any subjective viewpoints implied or expressed in the book, the notability of the book is supported by content in multiple, independent, English language online venues. The editor proposing deletion discounts all 7 references attributed to Sanz (the book's author) himself, yet the relevance of these references is not proven by their authorship, it is proven by the implicit endorsement of the venues that published them. Similarly, the multiple references to press release coverage are implicit endorsement by the editors that chose to publish them and the venues in which they were published. Additional materials supporting the relevance of this book are not easily found via a basic search in English language as it is also published in Spanish with a Spanish title. While looking for references, I also saw academic papers that cite this work, supporting the idea of academic relevance. Lasty, as an academic work that is only a few years old, its importance as a reference is not yet known, and we should be biased toward inclusion rather than risk eliminating an important academic work from Wiki because it has not yet been widely cited. IMS91319 (talk)
 * I have added some more references to the article from independent author as user:duffbeerforme suggested to prove the notability of the book. If more references are required, I can add them too, but didn't want to make Wikipedia a collection of links. --Inlandmamba (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The referencing is now worse. A bunch of links unrelated to this book but sharing a few key words have been dumped into the page. Two examples: This book was published in 2009. To verify that this book "is a highly detailed account of Cuban history, U.S.– Cuba relations and a polemic against the United States embargo on commerce with Cuba" a 2007 paper has been used. To verify that this 2009 book "does not argue against the embargo on humanitarian grounds just as it rejects arguments for the embargo because of human rights violations in Cuba" a 1960 editorial is used. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been provided that it meets Wiki's notability criteria (#1 and #4) for Books. You say "the notability of the book is supported by content in multiple, independent, English language online venues", where are these venues? The relevance of Sanz's references are proven by their authorship, he is not independent as he wrote the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Article - We see this with books and other topics where Wiki's notability guidelines follow an 80% rule (they work well 80% of the time). Wiki's credibility/notability criteria for books use indicators that are related to the publishing and cataloging (sp?) of books that are sold. This appears to be a book that is not being printed and sold commercially, so, while there is an ISBN number, we're not going to find it at Barnes & Noble, in the Lib of Congress or at many of the other "notable" venues Wiki likes us to use to prove worth. That said, the book seems to have plenty of coverage in the media, and it is discussed as being a work of importance for an underserved topic. Should be kept. jdc_wms (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Where is this coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The significance and the value of the book is summarized by Sergei Khrushchev's endorsement. Neshmick (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Added a citation to improve the article, which has material affect on proof of notability, so I'm referencing it here. Showing its inclusion in the collection of the U.S Library of Congress http://lccn.loc.gov/2009926446. jdc_wms (talk) comment added 02:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This article seems to have started out as a simple promotion and has turned into a catastrophe. It seems like the editors plugged "Cuba at a/the crossroads" into Google and inserted every hit that came up as a reference, despite most of them being completely irrelevant. Most, in fact, seem to be where Sanz took his title from, rather than the other way around.  The endorsement by Khrushchev is the only slightly notable thing about it, and one jacket blurb doesn't make for notability.  Even that comes from a press release - i.e. a promotional source - and two references are inserted, one of which is simply a link to the other.  This article could be deleted for the bad faith of the editors alone.  In any case, WP is not here to document every self-published book.  Listing it on Sanz's article is enough.  KarlM (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the references need sorted out. So we should sort/edit/delete the individual references instead of trashing a page that may have merit and discouraging input to Wiki. WP:DNB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdc wms (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Started reference cleanup. Removed extraneous links and restructured references that did not support specific citation. More to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdc wms (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.