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. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Beaulne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. the only coverage I found is one line mentions confirming he is ambassador to Romania. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he's an establishment figure and Establishment figures require establishment sources. He's in Canadian Who's Who, who have deemed him notable enough for inclusion. My working assumption is that the professional staff at Canadian Who's Who know what they're talking about more than the average Wikipedian. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you please point to the notability guideline which says appearing in who's who means automatic notability? LibStar (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Also Who's Who lists are NOT RS. Anyone can pay a small fee to be listed in them. Plus they are pure opinion, not fact. Caffeyw (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Canadian Who's Who is like British Who's Who, i.e. it has editors who decide who gets in based on merit. Biographees do not pay a fee like cheap American imitations. All this is actually explained in the article we have on the source. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are dozens of articles in Google News Archives about his roles as Ambassador in Guinea, in Romania and High Commissioner to Sierra Leone, "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", as prescribed by WP:BASIC. Still quoting WP:BASIC, sources like Canadian Who's Who are dismissible as far as they accept self-nominations (eg. Marquis Who's Who). As this is not the case, they count towards notability. Cavarrone 09:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the multiple gnews mentions merely confirm he held the role in one sentence or less. they do not establish notability. I can find lots of one line mentions of my local police superintendent, that does mean we create an article about him. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lots of news coverage. These aren't passing references; in many of the stories he's named in the headline. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

named in the headline because it merely confirms he was appointed or he is making a statement as a Canadian government representative. can you point to indepth sources about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, your comment is more laconic than mine. In any case, I see no compelling reason to rewrite all of the above discussion in my own words. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hardly convincing that you do the same thing at mulitple AfDs [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. blind voting indeed. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Pburka notes, this person has been covered extensively by reliable news media sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 27 August 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.