Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991)


 * 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   Nominator requested close. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article was intentionally created as a POV Fork of the following established articles after the author was unable to reach consensus with other editors over his edits to those articles: Consequently, this article is highly POV, as is evident from the extensive use of Gleijeses as a primary reference. There is also strong evidence of article ownership here as the creator has tried to maintain his non-neutral POV as well as prevent merging of content into existing articles. The Cuban view is perhaps under-represented in some of the other articles, however a consensus-dodging content fork is not the way to deal with this. Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   10:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Angolan civil war
 * Angolan War of Independence
 * Angola-Cuba relations
 * Battle of Cuito Cuanavale
 * Battle of Quifangondo
 * Carnation Revolution
 * New York Accords
 * South African Border War
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please summarise your concerns about the NPOV problems for editors who aren't familiar with this topic? As the article is very long and detailed, it's not possible to work out what the causes of concern are from a quick read. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. Atyndall93 | talk 12:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Some examples of attempted POV fixes by other editors:             At a higher level, this article departs from consensus in other more established articles such as Battle of Cuito Cuanavale (where the result is "Victory claimed by both sides") vs the result here (emphatic Cuban victory, release of Mandela, Namibian independence, end of Apartheid - all attributed to Cuba).    Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The current title seems to be a good title for a military event that seems fairly obviously worthy of an article.  While I appreciate Socrates2008's concerns here, I'm not yet convinced that any of the other articles mentioned covers exactly the same subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Cuban involvement in Angola is 100% directly related to, and took place during, the Angolan Civil War. As an example; we have an article about the Vietnam War, in which of course the US played a crucial role, but there is no need for an article like the "US intevention in Vietnam" since their role is already coverd in the main article about the war. 13dble (talk)
 * coment. anyone deciding on this issue should go through the discussion page of the disputed article from the very beginning. i suggest they also have a look at the contributions of the very few people, mainly three or four at the most, who have been strongly opposing this article. this will give them an idea why they vehemently oppose this contribution. besides, an article "us intervention in vietnam" is indeed worth thinking about because it could shed light on issues never mentioned in the vietnam war article.Sundar1 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that this AfD primarily concerns the content fork over the Angolan Civil War and related articles created by Sundar1 i.e. contrary to the comment above, no-one is opposed to him making contributions in the appropriate articles. However the guidelines for Wikipedia are clear - we move forward by consensus, not by starting new articles with a different POV.   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now I tend to agree with Smerdis of Tlön's opinion that this is a perfectly viable topic for an article. Histories of different nations involvement in wars are perfectly legitimate - for instance, we have a Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War article, which is a pretty good article. The content of this article is clearly disputed, but I don't think that deletion is warranted at this stage, as there doesn't seem to have been any attempt at using the dispute resolution processes - I'd suggest a RfC and raising this at the Military History project's stress hotline. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and resolve the dispute. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, happy to pursue Rfc per the suggestion from Nick Dowling above. Will an admin please close this AfD.   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an appalling nomination. Cuba's involvement in Angola is a highly notable topic and needs an article. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (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.