Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Woltz Skiff

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 redirect to Fiji–United States relations. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Woltz Skiff

[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)

Ambassadors are not even default notable, let alone acting heads of an embassy for which we have no indepdent sources, just employer published information, and even that just amounts to extremely passing mentions with no substance John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiji–United States relations. My searches don't reveal sufficient WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand-alone article, but per WP:DIPLOMAT, Skiff's status as the first U.S. head of mission in Fiji when diplomatic relations and the embassy were established in 1971 warrants mention in the article on Fiji–United States relations. I've added such mention there. Cbl62 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. Diplomats are not "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly sourced pass of WP:GNG — if you have to rely mainly on the US Department of State's own self-published content about its own staff because media coverage about his work in the role is nonexistent, and you otherwise have to use a quick glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that wasn't about him and a wedding announcement to get any actual media sourcing into the article at all, then he hasn't cleared the bar. It's a significant enough role to include their names in lists, but not necessarily significant enough that they would each require a standalone biographical article without regard to sourceability issues. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2021 (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.