Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Christopher Shelton Koelmeyer

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Christopher Shelton Koelmeyer

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage, the only independent reliable sources merely confirm that he is an ambassador. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An ambassador is the official represent of one nation to another - It's hard for me to see a better argument for eligibility than that! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is no such thing as automatic notability simply because an individual is an ambassador - needs to be supported evidence that the individual is notable. There is plenty of precedence for the deletion of articles on ambassadors where there is no evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I fully disagree - I see no reason for not having articles on ambassadors! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a WP:ILIKEIT kind of reasoning with zero demonstration of how WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Oleryhlolsson, if there was such thing as inherent notability of ambassadors, then none of the articles on ambassadors would be deleted, which is not the case. Secondly there have been at least two proposals, that I am aware of, at WP:BIO to give ambassadors inherent notability. Both of which have failed. So unless you can provide evidence that there is a WP policy that supports your view, the article fails to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete absolutely zero inherent notability. A simple gnews and gbooks search of his name (without middle name) reveals little coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. @Oleryhlolsson: I have no doubt that you were caught off guard by the rejeciton of this article. At first, I also thought an Ambassador must the WP:NOTABLE, this was true even though I was fully aware that in the real world this is a job often given to campaign donors and non-notable career diplomats. Many Ambassadors are notable, but we establish that by finding sources to pass WP:GNG. Some positions (membership in a provincial legislature, for example) confer notability on all incumbents. Ambassador does not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not default notable, and the sources are not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 18 November 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.