Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Yvon

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yvon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lack of significant coverage to meet

WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
WP:BIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A quick glance at the hits in Google Books supports that, and there is also other good coverage on the Council of Europe's web site and elsewhere. A significant career, sadly cut short. Moonraker (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Any hits on JSTOR? LibStar (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have access where I am now. It wouldn't surprise me, you may wish to check. It would be constructive if you would also spend a little time improving this article, before you move on to finding yet another British ambassador to challenge. Moonraker (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  One of the added sources is just a 1 line mention and not about Yvon as the subject so fails
  WP:SIRS. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Sure, that is not "in depth" but it supports the fact it cites. There are many other sources, a pity your only input here is to find fault with those who add content. Did you check JSTOR? Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the "many other sources' that meet
    WP:SIRS? LibStar (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - - If you were to look for yourself, you would find them with no difficulty. Moonraker (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The onus is on keep voters to demonstrate existence of sources. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        
        The Google Books hits mostly look like one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:SIRS. No evidence of independent in-depth sources. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:54, 23 March 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.