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.
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails
WP:BIO, a gnews search comes up with a Asselin involved in petanque, and a lottery winner, I don't think it's the same person as ambassador.
LibStar (
talk)
03:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: given the large number of ambassadorial posts we see here, it would be better to tag for better references, rather than rushing to delete.
Moonraker (
talk)
03:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, NPOL. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed primary, listings, mentions, nothing that is SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. Keep voters above have failed to show any IS RS with SIGCOV, just opinions not backed by policy and guidelines, in fact they are repeatedly dismissing BLP guidelines regarding sourcing. //
Timothy ::
talk23:21, 21 March 2023 (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.
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.
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails
WP:BIO, a gnews search comes up with a Asselin involved in petanque, and a lottery winner, I don't think it's the same person as ambassador.
LibStar (
talk)
03:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: given the large number of ambassadorial posts we see here, it would be better to tag for better references, rather than rushing to delete.
Moonraker (
talk)
03:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, NPOL. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed primary, listings, mentions, nothing that is SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. Keep voters above have failed to show any IS RS with SIGCOV, just opinions not backed by policy and guidelines, in fact they are repeatedly dismissing BLP guidelines regarding sourcing. //
Timothy ::
talk23:21, 21 March 2023 (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.