Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Kahanoff

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kahanoff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, could not find significant coverage. The sources supplied are all primary. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have prod’d for notability not established because all the article says is John Doe is the Simon Says Professor at Your Town College or Mary Jacobsen is a swimmer who placed tenth at the last Olympics. Almost always someone will tell me those things alone make them notable. When I ask why a swimmer who placed tenth in the Olympics is more notable than an Ambassador, whatever the answer is is one that doesn’t make sense to me. Ambassadors have tremendous powers in their mission countries, including the ability to negotiate treaties, in their mission counties speak for their country’s leader and so on. That makes them more powerful than the college swimmer and depending on current events and the countries involved, significantly more powerful. Bottom line, I am sick and tired of hearing that ambassadors are not inherently notable. I will agree that there are ambassadors that are more more notable than others but to say as an occupation they are not notable is nonsensical. BostonMensa (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

then why have over 90 ambassador articles been deleted? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is going to unnecessary extremes. Ambassadors are not inherently notable (no need to get sick from this statement!) but often are notable under the WP:GNG. The cleanup hopefully got rid of those articles that were not notable. gidonb (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you (BostonMensa) say may have been true when the fastest means of communication was to send a letter on horseback, but, in these days of communication at the speed of light, is no longer true. Important decisions and negotiations are made and conducted by leaders directly, rather than via ambassadors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambassadors do not automatically get an "inherent" notability freebie just because they exist, but instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing — but the references here are all primary sources that were self-published by her own past employers, which is not notability-building sourcing. The way to make an ambassador notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to use staff profiles on the websites of her own employers as verification that she exists, it's to show evidence that her diplomatic work has made her the subject of coverage in third-party reliable sources, such as media and books. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.