Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Publicover

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. Reclosing as delete. This is an unsourced article and arguments to keep based on inherant notabillity have consistantly failed to make it into N Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Publicover

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies him as notable under any other rationale Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the page has been around for six years, there are no sources, and there don't appear to be many at all readably available across the web. Definitely a notability issue in that respect alone. Mediphor (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. Check the "References" section. Pburka (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who, independently assessed by notability experts at Oxford University Press as being notable.Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barney, do you know how many people are included in Who's Who, who would not be classed as notable by wikipedia criteria? The figure is probably somewhere around 30-40%. For instance District judges in the UK. District judges are group 7 judges according to the judicial pay scale subordinate to the 600 Circuit Judges, 107 High Court judges, yet are all listed in Who's Who. For example (Frances) Jane McIvor: District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), London, since 2001; Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1983; in practice on S Eastern Circuit; Actg Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, 1998–2001. Chm., Connexional Discipline Cttee, Methodist Church, 2005–. Does anyone think (Frances) Jane McIvor is notable solely because she has been "independently assessed by notability experts at Oxford University Press as being notable"? I don't. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a good counter-argument. It is essentially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This is a non-sequitur. Your estimate of notability inclusion is way off, btw. And finally, please calm down. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably argue in favor of keeping an article on Jane McIvor. The intention of Wikipedia's notability guidelines is to delegate the identification of notability to third parties, such as publishers. McIvor was identified by Oxford University Press as notable, and also appears to have received significant press coverage (particularly in relation to a trial she heard in which Pete Doherty was the defendant.) Pburka (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an ongoing debate, but in the opinion of many of us, ambassadors of major countries are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there isn't close to enough coverage of the subject to establish notability and the article content substantiates the lack of material available to verify some of the claims - "After a probable career break between 1977 and 1979, he became Second Secretary in Dubai". What? Speculating as to what someone did because there aren't enough sources for us to know what he did is a good sign there just aren't enough sources. I don't think this should be kept but if it is, the content needs to be cut right back to a few lines. BTW, my reading of the general consensus has been that ambassadors from major countries to major countries are "likely" notable but that such likely notability doesn't necessarily extend to others. During those discussions it was pointed out that even some ambassadors from and to major countries wouldn't be considered notable. That's nowhere close to a consensus that ambassadors like the subject in question would be considered inherently notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete ambassadors are not inherently notable , and this has been listed for 3 weeks with no one finding any coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2014 (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.