Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Boulanger

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. Star Mississippi 00:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Boulanger

[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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced stub for 15 years. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Africa, Ethiopia, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources... The escalating campaign is not taking us towards better coverage of diplomacy or anything else. Moonraker (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero attempt to address notability concerns, and a recycling of !vote that don't address notability all in a space of a few minutes from [1], [2], [3]. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO in my reading suggests holding the office of ambassador would make a person likely to be notable, but we still need the sourcing to prove notability. I fully acknowledge the article as written has sourcing issues. However, I can find sourcing mentioning his actions as ambassador sufficient that I’m not comfortable with deletion and lean towards revision. This individual was ambassador right at the cusp of the digital/print transition in news, and I see enough digital media to suggest there’s almost certainly outstanding articles. What I was able to immediately find include speaking engagements (https://www.africaportal.org/documents/3770/ENHANCINGCAPACITYJUL06.pdf) intergovernmental actions (https://www.ezega.com/News/NewsDetails?Page=news&NewsID=217) dropping all the way down to weaker sources like his appointment announcement (https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2005/06/diplomatic-appointments.html). Since my cursory search of digital media yielded some useful information towards notability, I’m not persuaded this article merits deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability — but the sources listed above are all primary ones that do not constitute support for notability at all, rather than WP:GNG-worthy reliable ones. We need media reportage and/or books that analyze his career independently, not glancing mentions of his name in organizational reports or press releases from his own employer. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Jo7hs2's comment that this ambassador does get mentioned. But that's all. No significant coverage from independent sources. Yes ambassadors can be notable. This one is not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. No sources in article so nothing to evaluate. Jo7hs2 did a great BEFORE and only found a press release (Fails IS RS), a routine article that uses the subject as a source (Fail IS) and a routine government announcement (Fails IS). Nothing else exists to show notability and the keep votes haven't provided anything that shows notability. // Timothy :: talk 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP article about a non-WP:NOTABLE subject that doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. I looked for sources myself and found nothing that would support a claim to WP:NOTABILITY. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2023 (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.