Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CiberCuba

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 redirect‎ to Independent digital media in Cuba#CiberCuba. I could relist this discussion again but right now, this discussion has become quite lengthy and I think this is a compromise outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CiberCuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I originally G11'd this article. In addition to maintaining that this is pure advertising, I have been unable to find significant coverage of this media outlet. Source assessment:

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Cuba. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article has a promotional tone and structure. However, in reviewing the sources during New Page Review, I considered the Radio Marti story and the Global Investigative Journalism Network story to constitute SIGCOV, which is why I removed the notability tag. However, I did not realize that RSN had deprecated Radio Marti a couple months ago, which would obviously make this ineligible to contribute to GNG. As a result, I won't object to deletion here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dclemens1971 @Oaktree b@Voorts If Radio Martí was deprecated a few months ago, but the source you're referring to predates the deprecation, it doesn't necessarily mean that all articles from Radio Martí should automatically be deprecated? or bold yes? 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's coverage here [21] and here [22], but it's mostly just briefly discussing the site. I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment voorts, Dclemens1971, Oaktree b - if Radio Marti was deprecated a few months ago, but the source is older, does that mean all the articles from that Radio should be deprecated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Deprecation applies to the source no matter when it was written unless otherwise stated, not just after the date of depracation. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What article are you looking at exactly on Radio Marti? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the IP editor is referring to the fact that the Radio Marti article cited here pre-dates its deprecation. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it was only depreciated as a source in April 2024 [23]. I would look for better sources if you have them; we could consider articles from before April 2024, but it wouldn't be the best choice. Meaning, we can use them, but in addition to other, better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was deprecated in May when I closed the RfC deprecating it. The deprecation was not limited to May 2024 forward and my understanding is that deprecation is retroactive/applies to any of the source's articles unless otherwise stated (for example, the New York Post deprecation is limited to a particular time period), so we can't consider any articles from the source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Simply for the fact that I can't find extensive coverage about this news source. I've found a few book references, but those are rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts The article in Pullitzer Center clearly defines the source as CiberCuba, there is a link to the history in Spanish in Cibercuba and the Cibercuba logo is displayed prominently in the headline. Reference [16] [24]https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/anguish-and-heartache-over-2015-building-collapse-havana-spanish

In this article from IWPR: [25]https://iwpr.net/global-voices/cubas-internet-blocked-pages-and-chinese-tech also mentioned CiberCuba as well as others.

This study from USENIX, mentions CiberCuba as one of sites censored in Cuba: [26]https://www.usenix.org/system/files/usenixsecurity24-ablove.pdf

The State Department, in its 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom in Cuba cites CiberCuba, in the Section III, Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom

The US Embassy in Cuba cites CiberCuba (twice) in its report 2020: Informe de los Derechos Humanos – Cuba: [27]https://cu.usembassy.gov/es/embassy/official-reports/hrr-2020/

There are more references, but I do not know if this is the right place to send this. Lockincuba (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about whether CiberCuba should have its own Wikipedia article under the guideline for companies. Specifically, this discussion is about whether there has been in-depth coverage of CiberCuba in independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Merely being cited by another source of briefly mentioned by that source does not qualify.

I see that this is your first post on Wikipedia. How did you learn about this discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this "delete" dicussion in the top of Cibercuba wikipedia page.

I appreciate your answer with a link to "Notability", I see your point.

My answer were more in the sense to complete the table that is posted above in this disscussion, and the issues cited there.

I do not know if there are in depth articles about Cibercuba. I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.

I know this is not a typical source but you could see how Cibercuba compares to other media: [28]https://www.similarweb.com/es/website/cibercuba.com/competitors/

Sorry if it is not what you were asking. Lockincuba (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this: [29]https://gijn.org/stories/14-independent-news-sites-changing-cuban-journalism/ , it is not just about Cibercuba, but it provides some information about them. Lockincuba (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, that a topic has received in depth coverage. Being cited by Wikipedia or other sources does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really interesting this Notability thing. I just found this guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, which give us a slighty different approach to a news site like Cibercuba and specificcally address the issue at the core of this discussion, and I quote:

"Newspapers can have a significant impact on the areas they serve, and in representing those areas to the wider world. Because its impact may be felt over a long period of time, a newspaper may be very significant, without attracting the kind of general review in other publications that would most handily fulfill Wikipedia's general notability guideline.... Additionally, while newspapers and magazines may review and critique other works of non-fiction (books, documentaries, scholarly works) it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms."

Although there are some points to consideer that are not available about Cibercuba, being and independent (censored) organization in Cuba, there are specific points that are relevant to them, among them:

- It is referred to in one or more strong reliable sources as the newspaper of record for a certain locale, in the reputational (i.e., subjective) sense.

- Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources

- Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources

In any case I also found some articles in other media that gives specific coveraga to issues where Cibercuba team were the actual news:

[30]https://www.14ymedio.com/internacional/mariela-castro-reporteros-conferencia-espana_1_1052659.html

[31]https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/america-latina/cuba-es/article222703500.html

[32]https://cpj.org/2020/01/cuban-reporter-iliana-hernandez-charged-with-illeg/

[33]https://www.14ymedio.com/cuba/ayuda-matthew-cuba-baracoa-damnificados_1_1060447.html

[34]https://www.diariolasamericas.com/cultura/artistas-celebran-aniversario-cibercubaen-miami-n4126518

[35]https://www.americateve.com/exitosos-emprendedores-cubanos-quieren-abrir-oficinas-cuba-n885575

I even found a Master thesis in an Spain university that it is focused in compare Cibercuba and Cubadebate (one official/goverment funded news organization):

Communication of risk and crisis in the digital press from the informative treatment: A study of the fire in the largest fuel depot in Cuba in the Cubadebate and Cibercuba media

[36]https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/155643/TFMCyC_comunicacionderiesgo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Hope this will help the "case" of Cibercuba deserving a place in the Wikipedia. I truly believe it belong here.

Thanks Lockincuba (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the sources you shared establish notability under the notability guideline for corporations. The WikiProject Newspapers essay on notability that you cited has not gained consensus in the community. here is my assessment of the new sources:

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Even if there is not consensus the page was keep there, linked and it express an issue common to all news organizacions: "it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms, therefore I believe should be taken into account.

I found some precense of CiberCuba in TV with interviews:

- Interview of the TV program of America Teve dedicated in exclusive to some espionage documents revealed by Cibercuba, with two of their journalists: [44]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mf6xo3z9iI

- Another interview of a Cibercuba journalist about corruption in a Cuban medical organization: [45]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzzadyr5l8&t=49s

I found some coverage in the officialist media of the cuban regime to criticize Cibercuba work. There are articles in .cu, domains (which are all official cuban organizations), tryong to discredit Cibercuba work. Are those critics notable coverage?

I tried to replicate your tablewith the references that were not included, but it did not work:

| GIJN || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| IWPR || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| Usenix || Yes || No || No || ? || ?

|-

| U.S. Department of State || Yes || Yes|| No || ? || ?

|-

| The US Embassy in Cuba || Yes || Yes || No || ? || ?

|} Lockincuba (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms This is the opinion of some people in the WikiProject that wrote that essay, and it's an opinion that I happen to disagree with. Notable newspapers are regularly written about in nonfiction books, magazines, other newspapers, etc. Relying on another newspaper's reporting or interviewing its journalists about a story or reporting on a story that the outlet broke are not, however, secondary, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the US embassy, the Cuban government, and official Cuban media/outlets loyal to the Cuban state are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact checking that have editorial guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand considering the Cuban government and affiliates non-reliable, but I see no problem with the US Embassy -- I imagine they review their communications before they are sent out. I also don't think that the 14ymedio and El Nuevo Herald articles above are non-secondary: they are about the CiberCuba's staff, not their own staffs. And the 14ymedio posts taking a political stance in support does not make it non-independent: you can be independent of someone and still support them. So the El Nuevo Herald article would be a qualifying source here, I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is significant coverage and if Ecured exists, it is an unreliable encyclopedia because this alternative and very relevant dissident media cannot exist in being supervisors of the Cuban dictatorship. My position is to maintain. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A news web site with millions monthly pageviews Similarweb, a verified Facebook page with 3.5 million followers CiberCuba FB page, with 260K indexed pages in Google, more that 10 years producing news, where THE two US presidential candidates where interviewed in 2020 Donald Trump interview, Joe Biden interview, as well as US senantors, mayors and other tp level politicians, with their news cited by the thousands in international media, including NY Times, BBC, France 24, Washignton Post, Telemundo and many others (see links above), with hundreds of citations in Wikipedia (where coincidentally, some pages were created in great part based on references from CiberCuba), with citations in the US state department and other .GOV sites its by all standards Notable. As Dan Rather said: “The best journalists are not part of the story; they are observers who gather facts and relay them.”.

Lockincuba (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but only one firm !vote for deletion so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two delete !votes: my nom and oaktree. Then there's a keep !vote from an IP that was blocked for being disruptive and another from an SPA that hasn't really grasped NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, two Delete "votes" and two weak Keeps is not a strong consensus. I can see why this discussion was relisted, to see if a firmer consensus can be established. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any confusion as an SPA who may not fully grasp NCORP. I just want to clarify that I am not interested in being a Wikipedia editor, but I joined this discussion because I strongly believe that deleting the Wikipedia page of CiberCuba would be a significant mistake. I have outlined my reasons for keeping the page above.

That said, I would like to provide some examples before leaving the conversation. There are several pages on Wikipedia, such as Ahora (newspaper), Guerrillero (newspaper), Vanguardia (Cuban newspaper), among many others, which have not undergone the same level of scrutiny. These "outlets", are controlled by the state, the PCC (Cuban Communist Party), the UJC (Union of Young Communists), etc. They publish the "official" version of news, that are mostly propaganda or just fake news. Their Wikipedia pages have not references, external links, citations, and seems created in bulk.

I believe it's important to consider consistency. Lockincuba (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that relisting was appropriate, I just wanted to make that note. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning Redirect: I'm not seeing clear sigcov, though it looks like there is some level of coverage here, and this and this has some extremely limited coverage. There may be other useful sources via scholar.google.com which have something better but I can't view them . It's probably reasonable for Independent digital media in Cuba#Cibercuba to continue to exist -- though it needs to be properly referenced, etc etc -- and if it is then redirection there as an WP:ATD is preferable to deletion. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given a significant amount of coverage seems to come from one event involving their reporters, this seems like it might be reasonable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Independent digital media in Cuba#Cibercuba as an WP:ATD. I've found the same reports as Hydronium Hydroxide, but I doubt they have the coverage for a full article. I am also very impressed by the source analysis in the nom's statement and partially agree with it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2024 (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.