Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul André Beaulieu

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. The opinions are almost all somewhat weak, but taken together there is still consensus to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul André Beaulieu

[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)

Declined prod. Unreferenced stub for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, neither is having multiple roles. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Iraq, Lebanon, France, Portugal, Canada, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being Canadian ambassador to successively Brazil, the UN and France suggests a diplomat at the top of the pile. These are three very important postings in succession. It is true that it is currently unreferenced, but his tenure of these posts can be confirmed by online sources. Print sources are more likely sources for the time he was operating, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I do that print sources are harder to find. Claiming that an article on a clearly notable individual active in the pre-internet age should be deleted just because there are no sources yet is going against both the spirit of Wikipedia and common sense. To me, it always suggests that an editor making such a claim simply wants to delete articles for dogmatic reasons rather than for the good of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, you should know better than to use a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument in a deletion discussion. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better than to attempt to rubbish another editor's opinion, especially after it has been explained to you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better than to jump into a WP:MUSTBESOURCES !vote and perhaps do a search for sources first over a few days, even if they are off-line sources, and come back when you have your tangible evidence of sources. Although Google books goes back decades. Simply trying to rubbish another editor who points out the fault of another editor's vote is not befitting of an admin who should display highest standards on WP. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable diplomat and award winning author and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Some sources Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Canadian Who's Who, Le Monde 1968, Le Monde 1970, Montreal Star 1967. There's more in newspapers.com re his various postings, UN, Brazil etc. Piecesofuk (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he gets a free pass as notable because you believe all ambassadors are notable and therefore no need to supply sources. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ANYBIO as "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary". See this. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not Canada's dictionary of national biography. Did you mean to post a different link? -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is the DCB/DBC, and to my knowledge it includes only people who died prior to 2001. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NPROF #3, "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" -- membership in the Royal Society of Canada, verifiable here, qualifies. I also think the sources provided by Piecesofuk are helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~: The article is the definition of death by a thousand passing mentions. I've spent half an hour looking for sources everywhere. EBSCO has him participating in some notable discussions on NAFTA and other political issues of the times in the 1980s and 1990s, but there's no commentary *about* him in any of these sources. His participation doesn't make him inherently notable. Newspaper sources include coverage like this, about his appointment to the UN ([1]), and notices of where he has been appointed to, without any coverage about it. I found this article ([2]) about his role as the head of the Canadian legation in Lebanon (that's noted in a number of articles, but nothing really talking about it extensively). For LEvalyn's argument about WP:NPROF, it also clearly states right away in the next section that "An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient" and there needs to be more sources for an article to establish notability... which I lean on the side of this not, for now. This reminds me of a recent deletion discussion of John Clemence Gordon Brown, a similarly "just not notable enough" Canadian diplomat. On his UN job -- I could only find sources saying he was appointed as "Deputy Permanent Representative" which feels less notable to me, but I may just be missing obvious things. Nomader (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my !vote and moved to Keep, had somehow missed the clear sourcing collection from LibStar above (apologies for somehow glossing over it on my review of this discussion). Nomader (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader, what that "article's assertion" bit means is that the article can't just say "is a Royal Society member" but needs to actually have a citation to prove it, which LEvalyn did. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my mistake to me -- really helpful and you both are correct here. Nomader (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the great things he did that were very notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such as what? In what way does he meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 05:32, 13 April 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.