Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne-Marie Bourcier

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Bourcier

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. ambassadors are not inherently notable, and coverage is merely 1 line mentions confirming she was an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stand by my previously-expressed view that ambassadors are notable by virtue of their high office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for automatic notability. A discussion on the talk page of WP:BIO found no consensus for automatic notability of ambassadors. Please demonstrate actual in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did it find any consensus against automatic notability. It in fact found no consensus either way. As I have said, several times now, I have expressed my opinion that the position is senior enough to make its holders notable. This is an AfD. Opinions are valid. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything. If the closer agrees with me then they agree with me; if they agree with you then they agree with you. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while there is no consensus that all ambassadors are automatically notable, and outcomes here can be inconsistent, this person appears to pass notability as an office-holder and generally by way of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the refs merely have brief mentions she was an ambassador. I tried the various links above to search for more sources, no luck. So pragmatically seems we don't have - and will perhaps never have - significant coverage enough to write a meaningful article. Martinp (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with both User:Necrothesp and User:Bearian. Had she been ambassador only once I might have suggested merging into an appropriate foreign relations page. However she represented Canada as ambassador plenipotentiary to two different nations, and received significant coverage in reliable sources in both countries while doing so. She also received coverage in her non-ambassadorial posts with Foreign Affairs.[1]. Pburka (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (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.