Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Lawless

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. Consensus is he meets POLITICIAN & GNG, (No disrespect to ST but I really can't understand the !vote so I'm closing this as such.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lawless[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTRESUME. ambassadors are not inherently notable . there is a lot of coverage for a fight victim of the same name but nothing indepth about this individual. let's see if the usual suspect turns up at this discussion. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can be a better convincing article as this article is currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though I am the article creator), there are sources from a number of Australian newspapers, Lawless has been the resident ambassador to three countries. These factors indicate notability per the GNG. However on a technical reading, NBIO states that "Politicians ... who have held international ... offices" are presumed notable, an ambassadorial position is international and they (in absence of a specific bit for diplomats) are usually considered politicians. While this is not directly showing notability, the page view stats show that it is a regularly viewed page (even before the AfD nomination). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE is not a reason for keeping. Secondly for the purposes of Wikipedia there is no inherent notability given to ambassadors. In fact many have been deleted. Being an ambassador to 3 countries is not a criterion for notability . LibStar (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that either of those things were specific reasons to keep the article. I said that it meets GNG, the other stuff is just in addition to that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per reasons given by @Callanecc:. This subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 07:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Callanecc and Kagundu. Satisfies GNG and BIO. POLITICIAN now contains no words to the effect that being an ambassador is not an international office. Whether ambassadors have been deleted in the past is irrelevant, as stare decisis does apply at AfD. James500 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--TM 16:53, 22 February 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.