Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Cabrera y Cuarón

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. Kurykh (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Cabrera y Cuarón

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

Delete per notability guidelines and WP:TOOSOON. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador of one major nation to another major nation. Significant post equals significant holder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" significant post" does not mean automatic WP article, unless it has a defined inherent notability under WP:BIO which ambassadors do not. LibStar (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete as previous AfDs have demonstrated there is absolutely no inherent notability of ambassadors and their notability is not related to the "significance" of countries represented or posted to. What would establish notability is significant third party coverage of this person including achievements as ambassador besides routine reports "he holds an ambassador position". I have done a search and found no evidence to establish WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually an inclusionist, but not in this case, as per above user's argument. Stamboliyski (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 02:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible notable but no justification at present --Mevagiss (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2014 (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.