Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pearson (Canadian 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pearson (Canadian diplomat)[edit]

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

Government bureaucrat; does not meet the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Search of Google and Google News did not find any significant coverage. Unreferenced since 2008. MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't want to prod this article because it does appear to imply notability. Also, the article has been here a long time and has been edited by several different people. However, I do believe he fails the notability test. The only thing I found on a Google News search was this passing mention. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he is a member of an important political family as his grandfather won the Nobel Peace Prize and later became Prime Minister of Canada, notability is not inherited and this person is simply a competent but non-notable civil servant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only "reference" being cited here is a dead link to an article written by, not about, him — thus, there is not sufficient sourcing here to pass either WP:BLP or WP:GNG. While it's certainly possible that he might be notable enough for a properly written article, as a living person he's not entitled to keep an unreferenced one, and there's no role that's so notable that the need to have articles about its holders overrides Wikipedia's rules about proper referencing. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if the article actually sees improvement before closure, but in its current form it's an obvious delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't even find a mention of him at the website of the agency where he works, Fisheries and Oceans Canada - where I was hoping to find at least verification if not notability. The only verification I could find that he even works there is the article I cited above, where he is quoted as being "of" that agency. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual may be notable but we require WP:V. I did my best to locate _any_ source that mentioned this individual, but was unable to find anything. I tried both Google and the website of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Suttungr (talk) 23:21, 27 July 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.