Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Bolduc

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 November 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. I have to largely discount the "keep" opinions arguing for the inherent notability of ambassadors, because that is a field well covered by our notability guidelines, which do not provide for such a presumption of notability. Sandstein 07:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Bolduc

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. all I could find for coverage is merely confirming he held posts. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. I doubt that this is the same Canadian Jean-Pierre Bolduc who was a director of an international humanitarian assistance program, and author of "Natural Disasters in the Third World: The Myths and the Role of the Media" (1987). He also has passing mention here and there. But even if he is, together they do not have significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a primary source biography of him, in a PDF backgrounder for an African visit by Michaëlle Jean, which stated that his background was in humanitarian assistance and development — so there's at least a stronger possibility than you seem inclined to believe, obviously pending further research, that it is the same person. CIDA is actually a division of DFAIT, so that's a completely plausible career path. He was also, for what it's worth, Canada's ambassador to Senegal at the time of Jean's tour, which means that the article isn't getting updated very often. That said, a person doesn't get over a Wikipedia inclusion bar on primary sources alone, so neither of those facts guarantee him a keep just because of the PDF — but it's a definite "more research needed" case. I'll fire up the ProQuest right now, and report my findings as soon as I can. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This DFAIT press release attributes Bolduc with a CIDA background, including its International Humanitarian Assistance Division, which means it is the same person. ProQuest came up mostly dry, for the record; I found one source from 1986 for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc, director of the Canadian International Development Agency's international humanitarian assistance branch", but nothing else at all. But sourcing for his ambassadorial postings does exist in French language sources from African media on a Google search. (Wikipedia only requires our content to be in English — the sources can be in any language that any Wikipedian has the ability to translate if asked.) So when you couple the sources that exist for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc Congo" with the ones that exist for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc Senegal" (which likely weren't previously considered, due to this article's failure to include the Senegal posting at all), I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree about the substantialness of the coverage, but you have just made this a "no consensus" result, hence kept. --Bejnar (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Veteran ambassador to a number of countries. Significant enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he's only been resident ambassador to 3 countries. Hardly remarkable. And a 10 year long career is not really veteran. There are countless ambassadors with 20+ year careers. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - diplomats are in a position of prestige, somewhat equivalent to high-level postings, and receive frequent media coverage as such, especially in the country they are sent to. [1], [2], [3] —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the first 2 sources he's actually not the subject of the coverage, he is merely stating the Canadian government position. These sources do not add to his notability. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - diplomats and ambassadors are not inherently notable. As politicians, they usually fail WP:NPOL, since they are appointed, not elected. Usually if a diplomat/ambassador achieves notability it is due to other factors in their life, not the simple fact that they were appointed to a foreign duty post. Currently, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this individual passes WP:GNG. A few passing mentions in News, zero in Newspapers (all the hits there are for other people with this same name); in books, there is one with an article by him, but that doesn't go to notability, all the rest are trivial mentions; same on Scholar, and a single trivial hit on Highbeam. Zip on JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not politicians, so WP:NPOL doesn't apply at all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors are the highest level of their profession, and therefore ought to be considered as notable--just a are professional athletes. Certainly do not delete without a proper search in Francophone sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are the highest level of their profession, and therefore ought to be considered as notable absolutely not true, there is no inherent notability of ambassadors as proven by well established consensus. secondly, my search for sources included francophone sources. the person in question is Canadian which would also appear in English sources. have you actually searched for sources WP:MUSTBESOURCES? LibStar (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are considered notable on Wikipedia if they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. They're not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, if the sourcing for them is purely primary or entirely non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (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.