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 keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Wielgosz[edit]

Renata Wielgosz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The first source is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 11 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) 02:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Little sign of notability, but sources exist, and in my experience most Canadian ambassadors do prove to be notable, when someone takes the time to dig out the sources. On LibStar's user page we can see a strange obsession with getting biographies of ambassadors deleted, but I am not seeing any involvement with this page, such as a challenge to add citations, or any sign of efforts to improve the page, or any of the others. They are all just drive-by Afds and are not the best way to deal with under-referenced articles. Moonraker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where are the sources? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You can't just say keep without demonstration of sources. WP:ADHOM applies too. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, Greece, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for having a notesworthy career: she has been an ambassador in more than one country: in Venezuela, in Greece and in Cyprus. I also have to agree with Moonraker per WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being an ambassador to more than 1 country is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:NPOL, [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador. She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States, meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador. Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability, many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: What are you looking for to help make evaluating consensus here more clear? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, sources proving notability. At the moment, the !keep votes are weak, in my opinion, because Moonraker asserts in general terms that usually Canadian ambassadors prove notable and that sources must exist, although he does not provide any, NoonIcarus basically argues that ambassadors are inherently notable and, again, he doesn't provide any sources showing notability and the same basically goes for your keep !vote. Nobody has proved why Ms Wielgosz is notable, resorting instead to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ASSERTN, which is why I (and I presume, User:Northamerica1000) relisted the discussion. —  Salvio ^giuliano 06:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Salvio LibStar (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage by WP:RS sufficiently demonstrate notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Furthermore, a Canadian ambassador would be considered a notable subject per relevant guidelines (specifically, GNG), and the subject appears to have a notable career. While sourcing in the article may be weak, a drive-by AfD nomination is not an appropriate way to address it. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject has WP:NOTABILITY that would warrant inclusion as an article. Clearly, the subject is notable. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t have a claim to notability due to absence of coverage, however, WP:GNG is met by the subject and as such deletion is not the appropriate outcome for the article. If WP:GNG weren’t met by the totality of the subject and the subject’s career, the article could be considered a valid candidate for deletion. On the other hand, however, I find that the subject’s claim to notability is strong enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in the form of a standalone article, due to the appropriate GNG conditions being satisfied. The argument for deletion just isn’t very strong here in the face of the subject’s overall demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY, and the rationale for keeping is thus stronger on its merits. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 17:14, 1 April 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.