Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric John Bergbusch
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Eric John Bergbusch
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Eric John Bergbusch (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Mauritius, Tanzania, Germany, Poland, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing in my article or my BEFORE suggests he meets NBIO/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm from LibStar for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that
This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved.
Moonraker (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)- ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)- Keep and improve sourcing. I see sources that make me lean towards notability. I also see he remained relevant a decade after office, being published in an article about Canada leaving NATO (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40203276). The article has sourcing issues, but I refuse to believe there are no outstanding print sources for the Canadian ambassador to East Germany in office towards the end of the Cold War. Not ripe for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - neither of the keep !votes above is actually based in policy. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they meet ]
- Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. The only "source" in the article is not about the subject. Jo7hs2 BEFORE showed the only a single primary nothing else worth reporting, other Keep showed nothing. My BEFORE showed nothing, Keep voters haven't offerred anything other than a single primary, article itself is unsourced since the ref isn't about the subject. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - the notability criteria for Wikipedia are meant to ensure that the encyclopedia contains articles about subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If there is not enough evidence to support the subject's notability, then it may be appropriate to consider deleting the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- 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.