Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Archer


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Nick Archer

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Czech Republic,  and Denmark.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:Notability (politics) was a proposed guideline which lost steam and should not be used as the basis for anything really. I think using WP:POLOUTCOMES is better for your argument. Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The actual notability criteria for politicians are spelled out at WP:NPOL (which is a subsection of the generic Notability (people) rather than a standalone document), while Notability (politics) is indeed a failed proposal to spin NPOL out into its own document. But regardless of the fact that nominator linked to the wrong place, they're still completely correct on the substance of the argument: diplomats are not deemed to be "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability. But this is referenced 75 per cent to primary source verification of his existence on the self-published websites of his own employers, and the only footnote that comes from a real media outlet is not substantive analysis of his work, but mere verification of the end of his term as ambassador. So that media hit is an acceptable start, but it doesn't get this to the finish line all by itself, and none of the other footnotes count for anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Article contains a number of uncited claims. Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 16 February 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.