Talk:Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart

Notability

Many of these sources talk of him as "Fidel's son". Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course they reference the fact that he is Fidel's son, it is an inescapable biographical detail of his life. However, as the head of Cuba's nuclear program (and later as the representative of the Cuban government who announced Cuba's support for the Russian annexation of Crimea), his notability exists independently of that fact. He was also still a high-ranking government official at the time of his suicide, which is itself an aspect of his biography that lends to notability. His suicide, along with various of these other details, was prominently reported in major media across the globe. bd2412 T 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

But none of the sources focus on him, aside from the ones from today about his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. This one does. So does this one. bd2412 T 04:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's all you got, it's a pretty weak case for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how it's a weak case. He's independently notable as a government official in Cuba, and he's connected to two political families per below. This is not a 1E article. Davey2116 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, and I am not sure how to approach an editor who continues to restore the notability tag after consensus has fairly clearly established that the article subject is notable. Such conduct is, quite frankly, becoming WP:POINTy and disruptive. I will therefore formally propose that this tag be removed. bd2412 T 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• You could try to engage in discussion for more than a day, you could follow WP:BEFORE appropriately and not disrupt Wikipedia with WP:POINTy AfD nominations that go against procedure, you could wait for more than just the two of you to comment on this. Is that a start? The three of us have not created any "consensus" and it's disingenuous to say there is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• To be clear, there is no notability guideline that says being the "head of Cuba's nuclear program" is notable. That he supported the Russian invasion of Crimea does not mean he's automatically notable. It's about sources and depth of coverage, most of it in this page is of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED sort. I wanted to have a nice, open discussion about this, but I fear the well has been poisoned. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is no point in engaging in a discussion with someone who is playing a game of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT once notability is clearly established. You asked for sources independent of the subject's death, they were provided, and you moved the goalposts to a place that is clearly beyond what policy requires. The subject was the head of a national nuclear power program, which meets WP:POLOUTCOMES on its face. bd2412 T 19:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: remove {{notability}} tag on the grounds that notability is sufficiently established

• Support as proposer. At the very least, it is reliably sourced that the article subject led his country's nuclear power program for twelve years. bd2412 T 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per bd2412. This should've been settled at the AfD, but I guess we'll just have to re-litigate it here. Davey2116 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Again, this is not how Wikipedia works. You don't just shut down a discussion and take down a tag because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. 19:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have been an administrator on Wikipedia longer than you have been here at all. I helped create many of the policies on this project; I know "how Wikipedia works". You can't keep throwing a tag up on a page - clearly without making a serous effort to evaluate the sources that have been added since the discussion began - because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. bd2412 T 19:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Vice-president of the National Science Academy. Per WP:NACADEMIC's "is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences)". Moscow Mule (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support If Wikipedia can find room to host articles on hundreds of trashy movie stars and rap "artists" whose contributions to humanity are dubious, at best, it can certainly find room for a physicist or two. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 22:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

U.S. congressman cousin

OK, one of his cousins is a serving U.S. congressman (and another was in the past). It's an interesting bit of information -- in that it casts light on relations within the elites on both sides of the Straits of Florida -- but (recent AFD in mind) it sounds like an attempt to establish notoriety through association. I'd previously deleted the mention from the intro and was thinking of including it in the "family" section but decided against it. Why include a notable cousin (and then only one of them) but omit all reference to his uncle who, as a serving head of state, is significantly more prominent? Moscow Mule (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that there are two different issues here. One is that the subject is independently notable. The other is that he is part of two famous political families - the Castro family of Cuba (which is really only Fidel and Raúl, though Mariela Castro and Alejandro Castro Espín are at least known), and the other is the Diaz-Balart family, most prominent in Miami. I think the thing to do is merely to note in the article that Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart was part of that family - compare the last line of Waldo Díaz-Balart - and then to move Diaz-Balart to Diaz-Balart family as I have just proposed, since all notable persons having that composed surname are immediately related. bd2412 T 14:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving the family page certainly makes sense. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

That proposal has now been made at Talk:Diaz-Balart#Requested move 3 February 2018. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)