Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Cayer

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 15:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Cayer

[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, no significant coverage. Only sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominators reasoning. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:25, 13 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) 03:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are getting deleted for lack of sourcing anyway, I don't think it matters that much, we're cleaning the cobwebs out of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero attempt to address notability concerns, and a recycling of !vote that doesn't address notability at all in a space of a few minutes from [1], [2].
LibStar (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due my assessment that the subject borderline meets WP:BASIC and the existence of this article being a net positive (i.e. a bit of WP:IAR). Sometimes we lean delete if we sense the article is promotional, but this one is not, and most of it I added before making this !vote CT55555(talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find non-independent sources (UN and CA gov't documents) which are routine and not extensive. I can find copies of talks that she gave, and one article by her. That's all. Lamona (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough.--Jetam2 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2 of the 3 keep !votes are not based on policy. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond listings in various gov't documents and listings of postings, I don't see any extensive discussion about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 21 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.