- 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 keep. WP:SNOW. Inappropriately nominated. As Nate says below, don't nominate an article and then vote keep. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart
- Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User:Muboshgu has proposed that this article subject may not meet the notability standard for biographies because virtually every reference to the subject mentions that he is the eldest son of Fidel Castro. I bring this here to test that proposition. If this article is kept, it will be because the subject has been determined to be notable, and the notability issue will be resolved in favor of removal of the tag. If, on the other hand, the article subject is not notable, then it will be deleted, and the tag will be moot. bd2412 T 03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. It is reliably reported that the article subject was the head of Cuba's doomed nuclear program for twelve years, and that he was later the government official designated to announce that the Cuban government supported the Russian annexation of Crimea. The subject's hobnobbing with Paris Hilton and Naomi Campbell at the outset of the reopening of relations between the Unites States and Cuba was also widely reported. Finally, the subject committed suicide while serving as a reasonably high-ranking official in a national government, and this was reported in major news outlets all over the world. bd2412 T 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per bd2412. Davey2116 ( talk) 03:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- This nomination was highly inappropriate. I started a talk page discussion as per WP:BEFORE and instead you nominate the page for deletion and vote keep? To try to stave off an actual deletion rationale? – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BURO; don't nominate an article and then vote keep. It's a waste of the community's time and the subject is obviously notable, and the discussion should have continued per WP:BEFORE. Also, another inappropriate and unseemly 'in the news because of their death, let's AfD' nomination; we need some kind of cool-off period (perhaps a week) where this can't happen. Nate • ( chatter) 06:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 07:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- SNOW Keep: This nomination should never have been created per WP:BURO. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 07:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - if the notability was not directly in question, why nominate the article for deletion? KingAntenor ( talk) 10:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Thorough coverage in respected papers such as Newsweek. This article is long overdue, should've been created since when he was alive. – Ammarpad ( talk) 11:35, 3 February 2018 (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.