Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Dunn (diplomat)

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. Apart from the nominator, there is a consensus here that Dunn is more notable than your average diplomat, given the nature of the coverage and her longer than usual career. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dunn (diplomat)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. All this has is primary sources of government press releases. Consensus has shown for ambassadors to be notable they need third party coverage of their achievements and contributions to diplomacy LibStar (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important enough nations on the world stage whose interchange is on a high level as to render the ambassador notable via her position,Masterknighted (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. at least 50 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ambassador from a leading country to three other countries. We have tended to keep if they have had just two posts. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely not true. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that LibStar has not notified the article creator as required by AfD rules. 115.166.4.231 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is not required. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is not required, but the AfD guidelines recommend placing a courtesy notification. Why would you choose not to do so? Altamel (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again there is no requirement, are you now going to ask everyone else that hasn't done it. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bearian. A sweep of Australian news shows many sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't qualify as in depth coverage. Almost all of that coverage is not about her as the subject but almost all as making statements as a spokesperson for the Australian government especially on Flight MH17. Coverage needs to cover her biographical details, career history , education etc. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunn is in the middle of many important international stories, playing an important role such as helping Australians flee Lebanon, which is why there are so many news items. If interested in her education & bio details, check here or here. She's even in a book--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Further, she's been recognized by her own government as playing an important role in foreign affairs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2016 (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.