Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomás Carbonell (friar)

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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Carbonell (friar)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Re-nominating on behalf of ReeceTheHawk, who nominated the draft at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Father Tomás Carbonell with the rationale: "Relies on one source and isn't long enough to become an article." – Joe (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination statement, this stub is actually based on three quality secondary sources, all of which cover Carbonell in reasonable depth, and one primary source that is used sensibly. I would have thought as a royal confessor and bishop his notability would be obvious. There is plenty of room for expansion. – Joe (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-sourced - if brief - page on a Bishop. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are additional sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The guy was the confessor of a King of Spain in the 17th century. As Joe pointed out, that's obviously a position of great influence and significant historical relevance. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is so far only a stub, but in Catholic kingdoms, Royal Confessors held an influential position and he was a diocesan bishop, which again implies he was notable. It certainly needs to be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no problem with a short stub on this subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability indicated by episcopate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a bishop. So clearly should be renamed Tomás Carbonell (bishop)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:CLERGY, being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. I agree with the rename to Tomás Carbonell (bishop). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (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.