Renata Wielgosz: This person lacks significant coverage.  She does not even get 1 gnews hit, which is unusual for an ambassador from a major country.  None of the keep ! votes last time provided any examples of sources.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Cyprus , Greece ,  and Canada .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The situation has not changed since the last AfD, and the subject still meets WP:NPOL after serving as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States and director of Global Affairs Canada .  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 01:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable subject, page is well sourced and written from a neutral point of view. While it might never be more than a stub, it deserves its place on Wikipedia. Broc ( talk ) 07:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 of the sources are primary, the first source is a 1 line mention and the remaining source is a dead link. How exactly does she meet WP:BIO ? LibStar ( talk ) 08:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar I might revise my !vote, I started looking for sources and there is little WP:SIGCOV of the subject in secondary sources. I could only find a talk she gave at her alma mater and a farewell from the Canadian Institute in Greece . A bit weak for WP:BIO . Broc ( talk ) 09:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the other hand, as mentioned above, WP:NPOL is probably met. Broc ( talk ) 09:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : worth pointing out that no reason to overturn the last AfD was given by the nominator. What did the previous AfD get so wrong that we have to be back here 10 months later? Also worth noting that the same editor has nominated this both times. -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No rule against the same person renominating.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Though it seems poor form so quickly after the previous SNOW keep, and seems disruptive; do you have a point to this? .  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the keep ! votes last time provided any examples of sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly fails WP:GNG , which not a single vote in either AfD has addressed.  The "well sourced" comment is wrong - she's mentioned in one sentence of the Globe and Mail article, one is from the Cyprus government showing she's the ambassador, one link is broken, the two remaining links in the articles are links to a directory database of Canadian governmental workers.  I cannot find any sigcov in my search, and ambassadors do not get an NPOL free pass.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per WP:NPOL , [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador.  She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States , meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador.  Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO .  Nothing has changed since last time, where there was consensus to keep this article.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] " this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador."  Ambassadors are not inherently notable.  Over 100 have been deleted by consensus.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And as for the role in the OAS, where she held international office ?  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was specifically talking about her role as ambassador, ambassadors do not a get a free pass under WP:NPOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Red-tailed hawk I don't understand your line of thinking here.  That's not "holding international office".  We don't say that every diplomat, ambassador, or UN employee is inherently notable.  The OAS role doesn't qualify for NPOL either, as far as I can tell.  I presume the secretary-general of the OAS would, but I'd also presume they'd already be notable by WP:GNG .  -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Watch out for the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I have experience creating an article about a diplomat ( Wendy Hinton ), and searches in all the places I looked for sources there come up negative.  Entirely unconvinved wp:NPOL is met, and there's no reason to think sources offline exist.  Mach61 ( talk ) 03:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL , and strong procedural keep as it was renominated by the same person, after a previous snow close.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're allowed to re-nominate, and NPOL does not apply here.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But it does.  She served as second vice-chair of the OAS and director of Global Affairs Canada .  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 02:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, how does it apply in that case?  Second, how does it apply if GNG still isn't met?  NPOL provides a presumption , not a guarantee.  SportingFlyer T · C 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But then what's the point of NPOL if it just serves as a maybe, maybe not?  It wouldn't add anything to a notability discussion beyond just what's at GNG.  It looks like it was added as an introductory sentence in 2018 but nothing on the 2018 talk page (unless I missed it) supported that addition (or at least that change in policy) just a conversation about changing #3 Shaws username .  talk .  19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It serves as a guideline - if you've won an elected official position, there's almost certainly been GNG-passing coverage of you at some point.  I do not believe serving on the OAS is a NPOL pass, and even if it were, NPOL still ultimately requires GNG coverage in order to have an article written about you, especially if you're a BLP.  SportingFlyer T · C 19:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NoonIcarus What does Global Affairs Canada have to do with WP:NPOL ?  People who work for Global Affairs are civil servants, not politicians.  Unless they're cabinet ministers, which she isn't.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's allowed in the sense that you aren't going to get blocked for it, it's still frankly bad form.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, you aren't going to get blocked for it the first time ... :) Nfitz ( talk ) 00:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I took a pass at improving the sourcing in the article.  It appears that she was not the director of GAC, but rather a director of a division within GAC.  I don't think that's a position that gives automatic NPOL notability (the same goes for the ambassadorships), so we need to consider WP:GNG instead.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On further consideration, delete .  I strongly disagree with the NPOL-based keep opinions above (the clear consensus of past AFDs is that ambassador does not automatically pass NPOL although ambassadors may be GNG-notable, and none of her other positions are even at that level of visibility).  And my searches have convinced me that there just isn't enough coverage of her in independent sources for GNG.  The York University source that I added is the best so far, but as she is an alum it isn't independent enough to count.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There's almost nothing available in independent secondary RS, and certainly nothing SIGCOV.  She does not meet NPOL, which merely presumes notability anyway, so she has to meet GNG.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ambassadors have never been considered to be inherently notable, and this person fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO .  Yilloslime ( talk ) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete