Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne-Marie Bourcier (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There is no inherent notability attached to Diplomats. The article makes no claim to notability. JodyBtalk 03:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Anne-Marie Bourcier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. The last AfD had far from convincing keep votes. It is now well established through AfDs that there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one is no different. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As in the last nomination, where three quarters of the opinions were to keep. She served as ambassador from one relatively major country to two others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that doesn't meet any notability criteria, have you actually done a search for sources, or is this WP:ITSNOTABLE? LibStar (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or is it WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

does it satisfy WP:BIO. you never actually look for sources to establish WP:BIO, and recycle the inherent notability of ambassadors argument, when there is clearly no consensus for that. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * if three quarters actually presented decent argument it would have been a clear keep, but Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: a good example of why ambassadors are not given a free pass by WP:NPOL: unless there is something exceptional about them or their posting their presence only generates passing mentions in WP:RS. She doesn't have the significant coverage to get past WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - there is no consensus for the suggestion that ambassadors are inherently notable. People are entitled to that opinion but to date, there has not been community support for it. So we fall back to those policies and guidelines that do have consensus support like WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I don't think there's enough significant coverage for the subject to be considered notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Whack-Ambassador-Mole continues. (X country multiplied by Y country multiplied by Z bureaucratic post results in infinity cubed articles....)  Pax 02:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.