Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Stelzer


 * 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. (non-admin closure)Nrswanson (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Stelzer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. None of the positions held (including the current one, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs) give rise to a presumption of notability under the basic criteria at WP:BIO or the specific criteria in relation to diplomats. Bongomatic (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst I agree that the article, as it stands, isn't enough to assert notability, a bio from the Austrian embassy lists what he's done here. Don't know if this is enough for any kind of notability independent of the events, but it's only fair this gets considered. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing there appears to me to be something that either would give rise to "significant coverage" or meets WP:BIO. Bongomatic (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article doesn't give any sources the person seems to be notable enough, serving on several UN boards. The article does no harm (I'm assuming the information is accurate) and might be useful to someone looking for information on Mr. Stelzer. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say that common sense would dictate that an Assistant secretary general is notable ex officio. We usually don't write guidelines that cover rare special cases that don't exactly fit, but are clearly notable because of this relative rarity. Can think of it as an international political office under WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not going to be overwhelmed by biographies of all Asst Sec Gen'ls past and present. An Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations has the same diplomatic rank as a national cabinet minister, and an assistant secretary is just below that, so apparently the equivalent of a US deputy secretary, which we seem to consider notable.  There's also only one UN, which argues for more notability than just any country's officials.  He is also Austria's UN Ambassador, which also argues for notability.John Z (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep positions are sufficient as above. That's he's Austria's ambassador to the UN would be sufficient by itself--except it's not clear whether this is just to the agencies in Vienna/. DGG (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per JohnZ and WP:SENSE. The rank is essentially an equivalent of a national cabinet minister, that should be good enough for passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this fragment from alone is enough to seal notability: "Thomas Stelzer will coordinate the UN Chief Executive Board (CEB), in which the UN Secretary-General coordinates the work of all specialised agencies of the United Nations"... If we delete this, who's next to go? The UN Chief Exec himself? Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:POLITICIAN point one as having held international political office. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Ambassadors to the UN are automatically notable, as are holders of political offices such as this. Even if he's not Austria's lead UN ambassador (who is?), John Z's other point seems to indicate that he's at least as notable as a UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State - unquestionably notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2008 (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.