Talk:Cuban packages

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Caribbean: Cuba

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Cuba portal This article is supported by WikiProject Cuba.

Fair use rationale for Image:Salvador Allende template.jpg

Image:Salvador Allende template.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems accessing sources, notability and unsourced claims

First off, the sources cannot be accessed, thus, making it hard to verify

Secondly, Is the article notable enough? If so, how?

And if we were to establish notability, which we haven’t. What about the unsourced parts? As per WP:V and WP:OR unsourced claims should be removed inmediately as they appears. I tagged many unreferenced claims more than a month ago, yet no sources have been included. I tried to delete the unsourced statements but Mel Romero undid my revision without giving any explanation.

Please discuss. Likeminas (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This commentary sounds a bit disingenuous. The sources WERE active when the article was put up, and it was checked multiple times to be in line with the WP:V and WP:OR policies. Since the article was based on articles published by a reputable newspaper, which has lately removed them due to space constraints not to factual errors, they have become unsourced claims which need to be resourced rather than new ones that should be removed immediately. Second, to question whether the article is notable enough or not, that's again a bit surprising. In Chilean history, very few ministers have ever been impeached. The reasons for this are multiple and not to be analyzed here, but the notable fact and political scandal in which a minister of the Interior was impeached for conniving at a smuggling carried out by the president of the republic (and which in time turned out to be for guns to start a private army) definitely would rank as such in most logical criteria. Sadly I'm away from my documentary sources (being in Asia, while they are in Chile), but I already have taken notice of the need to resource, and have someone looking into them. --Mel Romero (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must remind Mel Romero to assume good faith.

I pointed out that the sources are not accessible, thus, unverifiable because they are. Two publications, for which, both cannot be verified is a bit troubling to say the least. Mel Romero still hasn’t not explained why he’s deleting the ^{[citation needed]} tags and the template at the top if not sources have been provided. I think we should remove all unsourced claims, until reliable (and ideally readily accessible) in-line sources are provided. Likeminas (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas, I always assume good faith, that's why I don't make a bigger issue of this. The article has been up for over a year, and during that time the sources were available, were checked by many people and were according to the norms. Sadly they have been taken off-line lately, and that's something beyond my control, but that doesn't make the article unsound ipso facto. The people who reviewed the article originally never had problem with it... so, bear a bit of patience until we can get new sources for the same old truth. --Mel Romero (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I'm looking foward to reviewing those reliable sources.

As for truth. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Likeminas (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many sources that your attempts to delete the article are plainly ridiculous.Luis Napoles (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? The main one is a blog repost of a now offline article in a Chilean newspaper that is nearly 40 years old. And then there is a supposed single mention of it by some ex-Cuban official in an interview. I just deleted a link to a Time magazine article as it didn't even mention the word "Cuba" in it, let alone Cuban packages. This doesn't rise to the level of notable.Notmyrealname (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas I just uploaded a web page that copied the full content of the newspaper article (La Tercera) before it went off-line with the interview to the DGI member where he talks about the Cuban Packages Scandal and Allende`s conspiracy with the cuban regime.

I invite you to review it. Agrofelipe (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but it is inaccessible, which in turn makes it unverifiable.

If this was a notable event in Chilean politics, there should be significant coverage and more importantly, there should be accessible references, right?

Likeminas (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References do not have to be web pages or whatever you mean by "accessible".Luis Napoles (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the fact that there are no sources that currently have these articles online (a blog with a repost doesn't qualify), supports the argument that it is not notable. There are no mentions of it in any history books. Just because something appeared in a single newspaper article nearly 40 years ago doesn't make it notable for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia.Notmyrealname (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a PDF version of the interview to ex-DGI Norberto Fuentes in 2002 were he confirms the story of the cuban packages and the cuban involvement in the chilean case. Agrofelipe (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]