Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Lucien Bobinski


 * 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   keep. Although there is argument about ambassadors and notability, the overall discussion leads to keeping this article the panda ₯’  23:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Edward Lucien Bobinski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador. All I could find is one line mentions, nothing in depth. He was also an assistant trade commissioner but again coverage is one line mentions. No in depth coverage of actual achievements. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Being the Canadian Ambassador to such major and important countries as Saudi Arabia and the Philippines is certainly in itself a demonstration of notability. Not surprisingly is took only seconds to find in-depth coverage of this person, even decades after his ambassadorships.--Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the last 2 sources are not in depth and merely confirm he was an ambassador, the 3rd source is about the value of golf in his life and not about his career or achievements as an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not discriminate against coverage of a person on other aspects of a person's life. There could be an article called "Edward Lucien Bobinski is the Worst Golfer On Earth" and that would still be considered acceptable coverage per WP:GNG.  You're actually making a good case to expand the article incorporating the golf content.  Just the first two sources, if either one were the only source, that would still be considered significant coverage per WP:GNG.  The last two sources, while one shorter than the other, combined with all the others demonstrate easily passing the threshold of "significant" coverage.  Although the first and second source give plenty of significant coverage, there doesn't have to be one very in-depth source.  WP:GNG even states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."  --Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not actually all that likely to be a very senior ambassadorial positions (Canada's top tier of postings would be Washington, NATO, the UK, Japan, France, etc, and not Saudi Arabia and especially not the Philippines) and the sourcing is rather thin. As such I see no reason to assume that WP:BIO is met here. As I've noted in previous AfDs, most ambassadors from Western-type countries are actually mid to lower-upper ranking public servants and have little public profile and it's not sensible to assume that they're notable. Only a small proportion of ambassadors actually hold senior positions in their ministry and/or have a strong public profile. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ambassadors between major countries are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you are again inventing your own criterion for notability. As seen here Articles for deletion/Robert Andrigo, this poor reasoning doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm expressing my opinion, just like you are. Shall we look at Articles for deletion/Brendon Browne? How about Articles for deletion/Matthew Levin (diplomat)? My reasoning seemed to be supported there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brendon Browne was kept because of the sources provided, hardly because of your reasoning. your reasoning is like me saying "all senior policeman are notable", there is no WP notability criterion that says that, but if I were to keep peddling this it must make it notable? AfDs are discussion of how articles meet notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are a strong supporter of Wikipedia being a monolithic bureaucracy in which everything is bound by rigidly applied rules. However, luckily it isn't. These are discussions and many are decided by opinion. I have expressed my opinion, you have expressed yours, someone else will decide on the consequences. Like it or not, that's how afd works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make ambassadors inherently notable, do it the proper way and gain consensus for a change of WP:BIO for ambassadors, even your claim of "major" countries is subject to POV. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're saying "we need a rule". No we don't. We're having a discussion. WP:BIO effectively says absolutely bugger all about ambassadors. Their retention or not is purely down to opinions expressed in AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * it is normal practice in the absence of a specific notability criterion for an occupation for a person to satisfy WP:BIO. You haven't even demonstrated this person meets WP:BASIC. Instead citing "ambassadors of major countries are notable" This has basically zero bearing in meeting notabilit, especially when it's POV what major countries . In the term spent arguing here you could have looked for sources to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (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.