Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian ambassadors to Burkina Faso


 * 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Canadian ambassadors to Burkina Faso

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only three blue linked articles have notability tags on them. This appears to be a list of only non-notable people. SL93 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up does not include creating articles. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment related recent-discussions/essays/guidelines seem to be WP:DIPLOMAT and Generally notable people and Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_14 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2013 and Village pump (policy)/Archive 104 - perhaps those links could be compiled somewhere permanently? HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Burkina Faso–Canada relations is a notable topic, and this is a reasonable component of that topic. If the individual ambassadors are non-notable (a dubious claim) then they can be merged into this list. Pburka (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never made that claim. I said that they appear to be non-notable. It can't be a reasonable component of a topic that doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing a topic with an article. Pburka (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't. You linked Burkina Faso–Canada relations, which I know is a topic, and it does not have an article. This list has been around since 2004, and there is no indication that an article about the topic will exist. An article about a topic should be created before any spin-offs. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you acknowledge that Burkina Faso–Canada relations exists as a notable topic, and that this article is an important part of that topic. You also admit that the members of this list may be notable. If I understand correctly, your argument for deletion is that the parent topic doesn't yet have an article. Surely the solution is to write an article, not delete the subtopics. Pburka (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has come forth with proof that they are notable, including in this AfD. The burden of evidence is on the editors who want to show notability of those people. "Surely the solution is to write an article, not delete the subtopics." That is my point exactly. This list should stay once someone does create an article on the topic. I don't take essays into account. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely it would have been nearly as easy, and more productive, to create the Burkina Faso–Canada relations article. I know you don't like essays, but I think WP:NOTCLEANUP is apropos. Pburka (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you indicated that "This list should stay once someone does create an article on the topic." I presume that you will now withdraw the nomination. Pburka (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time that I have seen similar keep votes, but the article actually existed in those cases. SL93 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The recent notability guideline discussions were about whether permanent ambassadors between nations were entitled automatically to standalone articles for each individual one. Even if the answer to that is "no", that does not mean that individual ambassadors are presumed nonnotable, nor that the diplomatic posts themselves are not notable, nor that we should not list the holders of a particular diplomatic post. I'd think those who are opposed to standalone articles would prefer these lists as a compromise to merge likely permastubs. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Burkina Faso–Canada relations or keep, as the individual topics do not appear to be greatly expandable. Also, remove the redlinks from the persons who are not likely to be/become notable. –Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't withdraw it. There is a merge vote. SL93 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I missed the "or keep" part. This is withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Note that withdrawing a nomination is never forbidden. The prohibition you're referring to relates to non-administrative closure. See Articles for deletion. Pburka (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the individual ambassadors aren't properly sourced enough to stand alone as independent articles, a list of their names is still a perfectly reasonable thing for us to have. For example, we do allow lists of cities' mayors to stand even if the city is too small for its mayors to be considered notable enough for standalone biographical articles; we just don't link the mayors' names if they don't have articles to link to. Keep the list, or merge it into a subsection of Burkina Faso–Canada relations. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Burkina Faso–Canada relations Common sense would indicate that a separate article is not needed. Atrian (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (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.