Deletion of Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba

Comment: per Calton. No, this is not frivolous () so please come up with a better reason for keeping it? Yes, the centralized discussion is a better spot, but this article is an originally researched POV fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:FAITH)

Comment: Greetings. I wonder if we might explore consensus-building in regard to the Article Name (title). I notice that the nomination implies that the Article Name itself reflects a point-of-view, which is contrary to . The Title may be POV because naming guidelines call for article titles to reflect the self-identification of entities like Cuba or the Cuban government. In addition, 'apartheid' and/or 'allegations' may be loaded, biased terms. Hence my questions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Original research, POV, and a pretty ham-handed attempt to dilute the word "apartheid" into meaninglessness by crowbarring it into whatever political controversy that a small group of editors can dream up. |WP is not a battleground, and everyone involved in this mess ought to go off and fight their petty little war elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLE)