Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilfrid Marcel Agnès

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid Marcel Agnès

[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 16 years. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 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) 03:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero attempt to address notability concerns, and a recycling of !vote that don't address notability from [1], [2], [3]. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the huge number of your Afds aiming to delete coverage of ambassadors are all drive-by and all begin with the claim "Ambassadors are not inherently notable." Some standard replies are called for. Moonraker (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin will take your weak (non-existent) arguments for keep here into account. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, as you appear to have unlimited time for pursuing the deletion of diplomatic articles, while others do not have the time to rescue them. But the massive scale and focus of your campaign ought to focus minds on whether there should be a presumption of notability, after all. Moonraker (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources with SIGCOV or is this another WP:ILIKEIT keep vote? // Timothy :: talk 02:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced and I could find nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indwepth (ProQuest, Newspapers.com, JSTOR, Project Muse). Ping me if someone does find sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 19 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.