Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuba at a Cross Roads (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After 2 AFDs, the consensus among editors who are actually here to build an encyclopedia is that this article should be deleted. No offense to the few good faith "keep" !voters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Cuba at a Cross Roads
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Previous AFD resulted in no consensus, but since then, nearly every editor who !voted keep has been blocked (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaratam and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746). Let's try this again; hopefully, with fewer sock puppets involved. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references, including Oxford and the Library of Congress, pass the requirement for third party validation. Sockpuppets notwithstanding, information about the controversial embargo serves the public interest. Khrushchev endorsed the book, giving it additional third party vetting. I disclose that I am a wikipedia inclusionist, I am married to a Cuban and am passionate about the issue. In addition, I have read parts of the book itself. I am not a paid editor.OldSwede46 (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — OldSwede46 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That didn't take long. Kuru   (talk)  04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable self-published material created by paid editors.  Sources are "press releases" and catalog entries.  Kuru   (talk)  04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The last AfD for this article appears to have ended on March 30th. I understand that sock puppets can potentially negatively affect an AfD, but this renomination seems a bit sooner than average. --Rockfang (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Relisting this AFD was mentioned as part of the SPI case. Given that the closer of the previous AFD, "No prejudice against relisting this article at AfD after giving the authors a reasonable amount of time to work on these issues," combined with the "authors" subsequently being blocked, means (to me, at least) that they had had their chance and aren't likely to be improving this article any further. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete For reasons I stated in the first afd. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sanz writing about his book and posting extracts is not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For reasons given in previous AfD and stated by others above: book is self-published, has little publicity or sales, and is generally non-notable. If anything, it's a minor contribution in a flood of similar books.  The fact that everything previously put in support of it turned out to be mischaracterizations by paid sockpuppets does not help the case for notability.  KarlM (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is not even a claim to importance. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 April 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.