Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Morantz


 * 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. If there are sources, provide them. If not, well, this is what happens.  Sandstein  19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Aubrey Morantz

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced and fails WP:BIO. Those arguing for keep should not just say WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Africa, Ethiopia,  and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism. NB, Introduction_to_deletion_process notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. Moonraker (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't just say keep to an unreferenced article without demonstration of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you were to look, you would see my point that sources are easy to find. I see there is a sudden explosion in the proposed deletion of diplomats. Your campaign does not improve Wikipedia and ought not to be encouraged. Moonraker (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , If sources are "easy to find", can you provide these sources? A search through newspapers.com did not return anything providing WP:SIGCOV, just some minor mentions. A general search also returned very few sources (such as ) with none being WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Curbon7. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , the question comes down to what is significant coverage. The 35 articles you found at newspapers.com are a pretty large number for someone claimed to be non-notable. We would not expect a biography for someone living. WP:BIO calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No doubt you also found some coverage in Google books, as I did. If I had time, I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry, simply because an obsessive editor is determined to cull ambassadors. If this anti-ambassador campaign is allowed to continue, dozens, or more likely hundreds, of diplomatic articles will not develop into useful content, and the people who create them will be intimidated into not starting more. If anyone thinks this is good for WP, I do not. Moonraker (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM. If you continue with personal attacks, I will report you. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , As you'll know as an experienced editor, passing mentions, such as or, do not constitute significant coverage. None of the newspapers.com results even come close to being an edge-case; they are all passing. ; no I didn't actually, or at least nothing significant. ; sourcing of modern Anglo-sphere political figures is really not that difficult. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Moonraker has been asked repeated times to demonstrate existence of sources. Despite this Moonraker has not produced a thing. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , I agree with that last point, at least so far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, but I doubt if you are saying that we should therefore treat "political figures" as less notable than others. And information on people who deal with international affairs is inherently more useful to this encyclopedia than that on people who deal with local or their own affairs. I agree that an ambassador can prove to be non-notable, but I do not agree with a presumption of it, and I am most unhappy about the level of the campaign against ambassador biographies which is now such a large part of the Afd jungle. Moonraker (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources you refer to as "easy to find"? LibStar (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have answered that above. Moonraker (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about their work — but there's none being shown here, and all I see above is an argument that GNG-worthy coverage exists being made by somebody who isn't making any effort whatsoever to actually show any of it. But WP:NEXIST only comes into play if notability-building sources are actually shown, not if the existence of such sources is merely asserted — so if you think that GNG-building coverage is out there, then put your money where your mouth is. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 01:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2023 (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.