Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Filip-Slivnik

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Filip-Slivnik

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

fails WP:BIO. simply being ambassador or ambassador to Russia does not grant automatic notability. no evidence of doing much as ambassador as evidenced by a mere 6 gnews hits with small mentions confirming her role. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though it's almost worth keeping the article to preserve the awful photo Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Who on earth thought that an image in which the primary subject's face was completely obscured by her hair was a good choice? Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not all granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat. If you have to park the sourcing entirely on a single press release from the government's own public relations division, then you have not gotten them over the bar that distinguishes a notable diplomat from a non-notable one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2016 (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.