Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stéphanie Allard-Gomez

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Allard-Gomez

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

Fails WP:BIO. All i could find is WP mirrors and one line mentions. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage and not just say "inherent notability". LibStar (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR--180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per generally accepted outcomes, a diplomat at this level is inherently notable because they are part of the diplomatic history between two sovereign nations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote, since apparently WP:DIPLOMAT was removed with what looks like minimal consensus (!) I don't remember seeing an RFC about it, but if the threshold for high-level diplomats is now GNG then I'd rather not have a say in this AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's very much overdue for resolution and wish I knew whose ass to light a fire under to get it done, trust me. But even when it was an active guideline, it still didn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on all diplomats regardless of the quality of sourcing that was actually present. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, ambassadors are not inherently notable, in fact several articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per generally accepted outcomes, a diplomat at this level is notable if they are actually the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to get them past WP:GNG — but is not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL.--Rpclod (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL is not the standard that a diplomat has to meet — that guideline's exclusion of diplomats means that it's not the test by which the notability of a diplomat is measured, and not that diplomats are never considered notable. Rather, until the dispute over the separate notability guideline for diplomats is resolved, a diplomat has to pass WP:GNG, not NPOL. She still doesn't meet that one either in the article's current form — but NPOL is not applicable to diplomats one way or the other, so failing to meet NPOL has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable source coverage. No prejudice against recreation if someone can write and source a proper version of an article about her, but diplomats are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassador of a far away country in a small capital, nothing of importance to our readers. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Given that she is currently active in her post it's reasonable to assume that most sources would be on-line, yet I'm unable to find anything of substance. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2014 (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.