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 . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wilcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable diplomat Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I restored some text that 122Monaro (talk · contribs · count) had removed. The article now has one reference from a reliable source, a newspaper in Bangladesh. More references can probably be found. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and get to have articles only if they can actually be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and what's left for proper media coverage about him and his work isn't sufficient. And we also don't keep articles just because somebody speculates that better sourcing might exist somewhere that nobody has actually found, either — you have to show hard evidence that sufficient GNG-worthy sourcing definitively exists before WP:NEXIST is allowed to derail a deletion discussion. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2023 (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.