Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cuba

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cuba. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Cuba|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Cuba. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Caribbean.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cuba/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

Cuba

2017 Aerogaviota Antonov An-26 crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Cuba. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Pardon me, but I don't really get it. This flight is listed on ASN, which is often used even as a sole source for some aviation accidents. Why is this article any different? --Global Donald (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, ASN is mostly reliable although you need to evaluate each source on their own merits. The ASN entry on this accident simply states, "An Antonov 26 aircraft, operated by Aerogaviota on behalf of the Cuban Armed Forces, impacted the Loma de la Pimienta mountain, north of San Cristobal in Cuba. All eight occupants sustained fatal injuries. The aircraft operated on a training flight.". In my opinion, I'm not exactly sure how this establishes notability. If other articles solely use ASN as their source, then either the article needs more sources (see Template:One source) or the article doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Only primary sources exist? What are you talking about? All of the sources referenced in the article (BBC, news outlets and the ASN) are secondary. Primary sources would have been any press releases from the airline involved, or from the contracting customer (the Cuban armed forces). --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ASN is a tertiary source as it summarizes primary and secondary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The BBC article does not contain analysis, evaluation nor interpretation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Regardless, quoting WP:PRIMARY, "breaking news stories are considered to be primary sources." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article you linked is not a breaking news story; it's an ordinary news report – which admittedly does not contain a great deal of information. The ASN may be a tertiary source, but there's no ban on using 'reliable tertiary sources', per policy that you linked (and the non-user-generated content on the ASN is generally reliable). You could argue that there aren't enough sources covering this event, but not that they are the wrong kind of sources, or else the vast majority of sources used for accident articles that we all agree belong to Wikipedia would fall foul of such characterization. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying ASN is unreliable nor am I saying that tertiary sources aren't allowed, I am only saying that a database entry only providing two sentences isn't, in my opinion, going to help establish the article's notability. Sure, primary sources aren't bad per se but an article on an event only having primary sources covering it would make the article fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just news coverage and a database entry, no secondary analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of every news story that ever happened. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into accidents and incidents category for An-26 and expand the entry for Aerogaviota. Additionally, this incident has brought the issues of that article to light, so me and i hope many others will be correcting it. Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wouldn’t necessarily oppose a merge, what more is there to merge that isn’t already covered at the article’s corresponding entry at Antonov An-26#Accidents and incidents? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nothing else really, would just like to see if i can find anything extra that isnt originally covered in the article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Sweden, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be deleting all of the nation lists on the Template:Guantanamo Bay Detainees? If not, why these particular ones? (I'm likely supporting deletion, just trying to understand the situation.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any list with only one entry should be a redirect to an article on the individual. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the rest should be added to AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Belgian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, List of Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay here as WP:NLIST violations, having fewer than a handful doesn't qualify you for a whole list, if the subject is notable bring it up there and if they're not List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is that way. Break out List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay into its own AfD, with over 200 detainees that's a whole separate issue worth examining and per AlexandraAVX should be discussed separately. Bestagon ⬡ 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and there is one argument to treat these articles separately(as opposed to an "All" outcome). Also, would editors suggesting a Redirect identify their target article of choice? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Belgium, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably neutral between redirect and deletion, but if you want to redirect I'd think the target would be List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Bestagon ⬡ 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: as redirects are cheep. I can't see any reason for separating out detainees by nationality into separate lists as it is just duplicative. When we start getting down to lists which have just one entry it gets especially redundant and would not meet WP:NLIST. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as all covered already by List of Guantanamo Bay detainees which details nationalities and is sortable. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. My own opinion, weighing all of the arguments presented, is to Redirect All but there is not a clear consensus to do this yet so I'll relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cubana de Aviación destinations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly,. are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability - indeed one is actually a link to what appears to be a review of the film Cars 3.

The overwhelming majority of destinations listed here are listed as "Terminated" so this list is also un-necessary, and already adequately covered by the sentence "Cubana operates flights to over 20 destinations in Cuba, Europe, the Caribbean, North, Central and South America" in the main article. To the extent that there is any encyclopaedic interest in Cubana's previous destinations, this is already covered by the page History of Cubana de Aviación. This page is therefore entirely redundant. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cuba. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said in other deletion discussions regarding airline destinations, in the case of mass removal of these articles I will quit Wikipedia for good. I have neither the time nor the will to discuss this over and over again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. As the flag carrier of Cuba, Cubana de Aviación certainly has a unique history, and it is entirely appropriate to discuss the development of its route network over time, which people have done in the parent article. What I cannot support is a list of every single city this airline has flown to since it was established almost a century ago. I see no need for us to document that at one point in its existence Cubana flew to some random destination that appears in its 1949 timetable. Such a list falls outside the scope of our encyclopedia.
As a side note the link mentioned above can be found in the Internet Archive where it leads to an article about Cubana flights to Martinique. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per repeated precedent. The closure of the most recent one I remember cited Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles in determining that there is no consensus for deletion. In the AfD review the "no consensus" close was endorsed, a number of paths forward were suggested to those trying to delete these articles to establish a new consensus. Instead, it seems that these disruptive nominations are continuing. Worth noting that there was yet another discussion about Aeroflot destinations also earlier this year which resulted in keep. Do we have to keep doing this? Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last ten AFDs on Airline destination lists have all closed as delete/merge (see here), and roughly 2/3rd of the Airline destination lists that were ever created (~300 out of ~470) have now been deleted. Well-attended AFDs included this one deleting 120 airline destination articles and this one deleting 82 airline destination articles. Two of these deletion discussions were also endorsed on review.

Moreover discussions about what lists to include on Airport articles are pretty irrelevant to an article that is not an Airport article, and a no-consensus close cannot be used to assert a consensus in favour of any particular outcome. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article includes the statement: "Frankfurt is currently a terminated destination for the airline". This appears to be based on a comparison of primary sources (a listing of destinations in the 1996 World Airline Directory - a sort of Yellow Pages for airlines, and a listing of destinations in a drop-down menu on the Cubana website from 2010). How is this kind of synthesis of primary sources to reach a conclusion that neither states not original research?

The reality is, this isn't a defensible statement, because there's a number of different explanations as to why an airline might have had a destination listed in a directory in 1996 but not be offering that service in 2010. These include an error in the original listing, the Frankfurt service being planned but never actually started, and the Frankfurt service still operating in 2010 but not being listed by mistake. Moreover since no date is given for the list, the implication is that this service is still not being offered now, when in reality we only know that it wasn't being offered in 2010 - and in reality Cubana are selling flights from Frankfurt on their website right now.

This kind of original research/verifiability problem is present throughout this corpus of articles. Indeed, the article under discussion is largely made up of services listed as "terminated" based on identically-flawed reasoning. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cubana de Aviación#Destinations as an alternative to deletion – Whilst I don't have much of an opinion on this matter, I feel like the information from this article could be merged, summarised and redirected to Cubana's destinations page as this would provide much more information and context to Cubana's history as an airline, rather than splitting the destinations into a shorter page with not much context given. Whilst sourcing does certainly exist, in my opinion, I do not think it is enough to justify a standalone article (Based on WP:PAGEDECIDE). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Previously voted redirect, changed vote to a merge. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per my other AfDs I don't think WP:NOT applies here, as these destinations are frequently covered in WP:GNG-qualifying sources. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to note is that those claiming WP:NOT - there's no broad consensus about whether these actually fail WP:NOT as a group at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is even less of a consensus now than when this discussion was relisted the first time. How do folks think about the possibility of a Merge that was brought up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on precedent as we have plenty of other articles like this for other airlines. Also per SportingFlyer. At the most a merge would be ok but if we’re going to have this information up anyway I see no reason to not have it on a seperate page from the actual airline.

Flyingfishee (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Precedent is very much the other way, since 300 such articles have now been deleted, with the last 15 AFDs about airline destination lists all closing as delete/redirect/merge. I also note that no-one has produced any sources (and that the standard here is anyway WP:NCORP, not WP:GNG, because this is an article about the services of a company). FOARP (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources already in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And which of those sources passes WP:NCORP and WP:NLIST? FOARP (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]