Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Bernard-Meunier

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. WP:DIPLOMAT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Bernard-Meunier[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. coverage merely confirms she held an ambassador position but nothing indepth on her as a person. also a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) did not result in inherent notability for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was Ambassador to Germany, one of the half-dozen most important diplomatic posts in any country, which makes her one of Canada's most senior diplomats and therefore clearly worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she still needs her achievements covered in third party coverage, have you looked? Simply being an ambassador to Germany does not mean an automatic article. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion on which you and I clearly disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me the notability guideline which says being ambassador to Germany means being notable? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not bound by rules. Opinion is valid at AfD and I have just given one! I do not need to quote a guideline to back up my opinion. Neither does a guideline need to exist to make my opinion valid. Please note that WP:BIO states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Amazing how many people think it is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your !vote would be a lot stronger if you provided evidence of coverage. have you even looked? LibStar (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one nominating for deletion. Have you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your response you haven't. refer to my nomination coverage merely confirms she held an ambassador position but nothing indepth on her as a person. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going round in circles here. Kindly refer to my first comment. I consider this sufficient to keep the article. Let's leave it there. The decision is down to neither you nor me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me you haven't looked for sources. The onus is on keep !voters is to prove notability by finding actual sources not inventing criteria like "ambassador to Germany is notable". Your arguments for keep are not solid. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments to keep are based on my opinion, which is perfectly valid at AfD. If you don't agree with it then that's fine, but please don't try and claim that it's not valid. As I've already said, that's not your decision to make. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are opinions on how a notability guideline is met or not met. Not an opinion that something is WP:ITSNOTABLE by inventing your own criterion. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you misunderstand the meaning of the word "guideline"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clearly you are making zero effort to find sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all this because I said I thought she was notable. You really must want this article deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure WP:ITSNOTABLE. All this time you spent arguing you've never found one source. Maybe you've tried to look and found nothing that's why you've shown no sources.LibStar (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread the section you've just cited to check what it actually says as opposed to what you think it says. I have provided an explanation of why I think she's notable. You just don't agree with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:25, 7 June 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, Courcelles 05:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is not a question of merely asserting a distinction, but of the reliable sources that can or cannot be brought to support it — especially when we're talking about a WP:BLP. There are lots of people who certainly seem like they should be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by virtue of their role (this happens quite a lot with diplomats and broadcasters, to name just two examples), but who just aren't actually the subject of enough media coverage in reliable sources to actually get past WP:GNG. These people are not automatically notable enough for articles just because they exist, if the articles cannot actually be properly sourced — but the only source that's present here is a bare directory listing of everybody who's ever held a Canadian diplomatic posting since 1800, and it doesn't even support the article's actual content, because if you click on her name in that list the only posting that shows up is to UNESCO. Which means, in other words, that all we have here is verification of her existence, while the actual claim of notability is wholly unverifiable as things currently stand. Accordingly, I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if real sources actually start showing up — but in its current form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take this back slightly — for some reason she has two separate listings, one at "Bernard-Meunier, Marie" which does verify the claimed Netherlands and Germany postings, and one at "Meunier, Marie-Bernard" which only lists UNESCO. So the ambassadorial postings are verifiable after all, but now her correct name isn't (both versions are completely plausible). And the mere fact of being listed in a directory still doesn't constitute sufficient coverage in reliable sources to make her notable enough for an encyclopedia article, so this still isn't keepable without sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 12 June 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.