Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Dubé (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. This does not rule out recreation as a redirect. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Roxanne Dubé
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

as per my previous nomination. fails WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT, and WP:GNG. coverage merely confirms her existence. there is no inherent notability attached to being an ambassador LibStar (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless there are some hidden sources that I'm unaware of, the subject plainly fails WP:DIPLOMAT. - MrX 02:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I continue to assert that permanent ambassadors are notable per WP:POLITICIAN, as their positions are plenipotentiary, granting them, at least in theory, power equivalent to heads of state. WP:DIPLOMAT is a worthless criteria, and I'm considering starting a discussion to have it deleted. As an ambassador, she was the subject of significant coverage in reliable (and less-reliable) sources. Some users may claim that this is routine coverage for an ambassador, however I believe that if a position routinely results in significant media coverage, holders of said position are probably notable., , , , , . Pburka (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the coverage you supply is mostly about her making comments as a Canadian official not about her as the subject. this is not indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. this is like a police/hospital spokesperson making comments in the media, this does not make the spokesperson notable because s/he got mentioned a few times in the press. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly any ambassador has the potential to be a valid article topic per WP:DIPLOMAT. However, the mere fact of holding an ambassadorship does not entitle a person to an article that does not make a credible or properly sourced claim that they were a particularly notable ambassador; they're not a class of topic for which a person automatically gets a Wikipedia article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * well said, Bearcat. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; sufficient notability to get her past a Wikipedia inclusion rule — be it WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:POLITICIAN — has not actually been demonstrated here. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good article about her. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to List of Canadian ambassadors to Angola I do not see any grounds for notability but things may change in the future so why not maintain the page as a redirect and list the subject at the relevant article along with other Ambassadors?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:03, 5 December 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.