Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Hulan

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 on account of insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Hulan

[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)

Ambasdadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. The 2 provided sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Austria, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has clear sourcing issues, with primary sources being used to establish notability in contravention to policy. However, my very own very cursory search turned up enough mentions in relation to her various fairly significant postings that I must object to deletion over revision. While no single source I found clearly establishes notability on its own, the combined picture was of an individual who is fairly notable in international relations. For example, a recent newspaper reporting on her statements regarding the Russia/Ukraine for lift suggests ongoing coverage https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/03/threat-is-real-of-russian-forces-invading-ukraine-mps-told.html, she gets quoted in random third party country media https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22100842/women-in-business.html, we can confirm she’s spoken before the UN general assembly (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/statement-by-ambassador-hulan-chair-of-fmct-expert-group-eng.pdf) she’s also on the IAEA board of governors (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-chair-of-iaea-board-of-governors-elected) etc. Far more failed sourcing effort is needed before I’ll support deletion. Deletion is not a substitute for fixing articles. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not indepth coverage and does not meet WP:SIGCOV for Hulan. This one is also not indepth coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. It merely quotes her in an article quoting many others. The fact she has spoken at the UN General Assembly or been on the IAEA board does not confer automatic notability. The IAEA source is a bit more indepth but it's a primary source. We need indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I do agree with the above. We need to be talking about how notable the person actually is, not making decisions based on the state of the article. WP:DINC seems relevant here.

The Toronto Star article above helps establish notability.

A few sentences about her appear in Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy. United States: Oxford University Press, USA.

She is interviewed in Ankersen, C. (2014). The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation: Canada in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

There are brief mentions in Behringer, R. M. (2012). The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied U.S. Hegemony. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. and in the Spectator link above seem to be enough to conclude that WP:BASIC is met. CT55555(talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having a position such as Minister Counsellor and head of political section at Canada's UN Mission, as well as a notesworthy diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "notesworthy political career". LibStar (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic, not political: Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to NATO and her country's ambassador to Austria, besides her position in the UN. During her career, she has held positions that make her stand out among other diplomats. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have notability guidelines for diplomats so her standing out among other diplomats doesn't help. She has to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I tried to express is that standing out gives her notability for an article, but it is not my main argument based on policy. Instead, it was WP:NPOL, having held the national position of Minister Counsellor; looking through sources, I can also see she has served in the foreign affairs ministry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, let's be clear, they do not meet WP:NPOL. Second, there is nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The only in-depth coverage is from primary sources. Libstar's analysis of the 4 additional sources above is spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NPOL or NBIO. Sources are either primary, her statements/writings or brief mentions and was unable to find any in-depth coverage about her. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
	From article
Primary, not IS RS for notability	1. "Canadian project in support of FMCT". United Nations Geneva. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
Primary, not IS RS for notability	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Canada's Ambassador to Austria". Government of Canada. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
	from discussion
A single quote (16 words), not about article subject. Quotes are not IS RS showing notability	https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/03/threat-is-real-of-russian-forces-invading-ukraine-mps-told.html
One paragraph paraphrases a quote from the subject.	https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22100842/women-in-business.html
Primary, subject statement. not IS RS for notability	https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/statement-by-ambassador-hulan-chair-of-fmct-expert-group-eng.pdf
primary bio, not IS RS	https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-chair-of-iaea-board-of-governors-elected
As OP states, a few sentences, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy
As OP states, An interview. Primary, not IS RS for notability	Ankersen, C. (2014). The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation
As OP states, only brief mentions, not SIGCOV addressing thee subject directly and indepth.	Behringer, R. M. (2012). The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied U.S. Hegemony

The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer that this is a pretty obvious chatbot-written comment and other users have independently raised this issue on their user talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found additional sources about Hulan:
"'Threat is real' of Russian forces invading Ukraine, MPs told". Toronto Star. 3 February 2022.

"Women in business". The Slovak Spectator. 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2023-04-04.

"Canadian university becomes IAEA Collaborating Centre". World Nuclear News. 29 April 2021.

"Announcement of new diplomatic appointments". Global Affairs Canada. 23 December 2021.

"The Director General for Political Affairs and Security, Ambassador Pasquale Ferrara, is on an official visit to Canada". Ambasciata d'Italia Ottawa. 28 July 2022.

"Heidi Hulan". International Gender Champions.

It's not as much as I'd like, but they should show that the subject has independent coverage. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus most of these of her statements or are trivial coverage (a sentence or two), neither which satisfy WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these additional sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV:

Toronto star article, not the subject of source and a brief mention of Hulan merely commenting as a representative of the government.
Slovak spectator and World nuclear news, a small mention but not the subject of the source, fails WP:SIGCOV.
Global affairs Canada is a primary source.
Italian embassy merely says Hulan attended a meeting, not WP:SIGCOV.

LibStar (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the source assessment above that the sources identified so far are all either non-independent or nonsignificant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 5 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.

Heidi Hulan

zproxy.org