Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Yvon (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Yvon
AfDs for this article:


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

The last AfD had only 2 participants besides myself. The sole keep !voter used WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I still see no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations,  and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Macedonia and Slovenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listed in the [original] Who's Who, which is highly selective. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BASIC (note 6): entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability. Is it your contention that this does not apply to the Black's Who's Who? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does not apply. The original British WW has been a standard and highly respected reference work for well over a century. Those to be included are selected by the editorial staff and neither apply nor pay to be in it. It is unfortunate that the name has been appropriated for self-nominated versions, but the original is not one of these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference, of course, that one does not simply self nominate for it (and, indeed, as Arthur Scargill found out, one cannot nominate to be excluded either), but the entries are largely written by the subjects, such that Ian Duncan Smith's entry used to say he went to the University of Perugia, when in fact he had no degree, and had merely done a short language course there. One of many such inaccuracies and embellishments. But more major criticism comes from the fact that the Black's Who's Who is not based on notability of the subject per se, but largely of rank in the establishment. All baronets are in by dint of birth, whilst many much more notable people get no mention. This page subject appears to have an entry by dint of his rise to a position in the establishment. Per the article, he has been an ambassador. That is enough for his entry in Who's Who. However, his notability is then judged on the notability of ambassadors for Wikipedia articles, and not on their entry in Who's who. Wikipedia's criteria are based on the notability of the subject themself, and not based on Who's Who's selection criteria. So, what of notability of ambassadors? WP:DIPLOMAT says If an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay, an individual biography article can be created. Otherwise, a redirect to another article (such as a list) is sufficient. So, on the basis that this subject has not met WP:ANYBIO, we are looking for such a well respected essay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all a different issue, of course. You appeared to be questioning whether WW accepted self-nomination or not. I would argue that being selected for WW is an indication of notability (except for people such as baronets only there by dint of birth), although I appreciate that for some bizarre reason Wikipedia, much to the joy of deletionists, has decided that ambassadors are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the previous DR. Fails WP:SIRS. No evidence of independent in-depth sources. --TadejM my talk 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:SIRS does not apply to biographies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, then WP:NBASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". --TadejM my talk 23:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think he passes WP:GNG. The Daily Mail article on how he didn't attack his wife isn't enough. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - a little reluctantly, but per the above discussion, all we really have for notability is that he was an ambassador, in three different posts. Per the nom. and as per Necrothesp, ambassadors are not inherently notable, and this is confirmed in WP:DIPLOMAT. The page subject is mentioned on pages about these diplomatic missions, which he should be. I have not made a !vote up to now because I instinctively feel that a head of diplomatic mission is as notable or moreso than subjects in some other policy guidelines. On reflection, though, there are a lot of diplomatic missions and these postings are brief. Moreover the real question is whether an encyclopaedic article is possible for the page subject. Regardless of presumed notability or otherwise, that should always be the real standard, or rather, it is what lies behind the standard. There has been no evidence here that this is so; all we have is his diplomatic career and that is encapsulated in the pages about the missions. We have guidelines, and correct interpretation of the guidelines indicates delete here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 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.