Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobías Zúñiga Castro

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 Speedy/snow keep. Nom effectively withdrawn This is an obvious KEEP now. I would withdraw the nom, but since it's already started, might as well let it finish and strengthen the article wih an AfD KEEP under its belt, yes? and there is consensus that as Secretary of State, he is notable. TravellingCari 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobías Zúñiga Castro

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "is every politician notable for being a politician? CSD for no assertion of notability and no context or content. Nothing links here (but Tobias, which I linked) ... qualifies for CSD A1, A2, A3, and A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Oh for goodness sake. He has an article on the Spanish wikipedia that we should look at too, but there is a (poor) source that says he was Costa Rican Secretary of State. That makes him notable. If need be, I can forget about going to bed a bring content over from the Spanish Wikipedia. He was born in February of 1854. That means it's going to be impossible to quickly find English sources on the internet better than the one I added. The Spanish article says he was Secreatary of State, among other things. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a poor translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the nominator has erred in his interpretation of Speedy deletion criteria. None of those cited apply-- plenty of context, content and assertion of notability. A2 applies to foreign language versions of articles on English Wikipedia that also exist on that language Wikipedia. In this instance, what we had was a bare-bones stub. What we have now is a poor translation of that article, plus information from a poor source. Some leeway must be taken in sourcing trans cultural articles and articles about subjects from before the computer age. It will take a search of Spanish documents to source this, followed by translation. Hopefully, the creator, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE is up to the challenge. I am not. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 04:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance has boldly removed my admittedly poor reference twice. So now I'm scrambling for sources in a language I don't know. Gets better than 20 Google books hits. That's pretty good for a man dead for ninety years. Has significant coverage in secondary sources. Anyone read Spanish? Dloh cierekim 04:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes. (Actually, I thought one "add back" was accidental via edit conflicts or something.)

Ordinarily, I don't go commenting after the nom, instead letting the chips fall where they may. BUT:

Big-D has done great work on this and I'm perfectly satisfied with it now. Did I misread the CSD? Yeah, probably. Someone mentioned in an unrelated page that I'm still battling the learning curve. Maybe.

This is an obvious KEEP now. I would withdraw the nom, but since it's already started, might as well let it finish and strengthen the article wih an AfD KEEP under its belt, yes?

Open for advice on the best course of action. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{11:50, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Well, when I mistakenly propose an article for deletion, and it becomes evident that I was mistaken, I withdraw the nomination so the AFD can be speedily kept. An AFD discussion does not strengthen an article. It merely diverts time and energy that would be better spent article writing. Not withdrawing the thing merely continues to waste time and energy better spent elsewhere. I spent time I could have spent sleeping to develop and support a "keep" argument I need not have made. I knew that Blofield would be back at leisure to to do the work I was doing in a sleep deprived state. But once under scrutiny at AFD, the effort had to be made. My suggestion to the nominator would be that they do a little research with the idea of sourcing and strengthening articles where the speedy deletion declined or the PROD removed. Dloh cierekim 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone who would have won the Costa Rican Presidency but for the suspension of civil liberties would seem to be a pretty specific claim of notability, and is supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it took was a little research < BIG ole ear to ear grin >. Dloh cierekim 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had found some of the same sources in the New York Times, which does mention him by name in a list of ministerial changes. I'd love to see expansion, but I do see notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a New York Times stub saying he was appointed Minister of War in 1902.John Z (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently his son, Tobías Zúñiga Montúfar was a prominent politician too. So considering how spanish surnames work, this with 142 hits, 19 with limited or full view, gets more.John Z (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this nomination a Secetary of State and presidential candidate of a nation clearly meets notbaility criteria. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:48, 14 August 2008 (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.