- Jean-Pierre Bolduc (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Seems to me a clear no consensus close - three keeps against two deletes. The closer has said he's discounted keep opinions as there is no presumption of notability for ambassadors. However, it is AfD discussion that largely shapes guidelines and AfD discussion is largely about opinion as to a subject's notability. If editors' opinions are going to be discounted in this way then there really is no point in having AfD discussions - we may as well just let admins delete any articles which do not fit within rigidly defined criteria as they see fit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's comment: I'd have closed this as a "no consensus" if the "keep" opinions had been based on the coverage of this ambassador in reliable sources – i.e., on his general notability. However, most "keep" opinions instead argued that ambassadors are inherently notable. Administrators are to weigh arguments on the basis of their strength in the light of our guidelines and policies, and our notability guidelines do not extend presumptive notability to diplomats (as they do, e.g., to certain politicians). That is not an oversight, but rather because there has never been consensus to do so, as a look at the guideline talkpage archives shows. A relatively long discussion about this in January 2015 did not seem to reach consensus either. As it is, therefore, projectwide consensus (as expressed in the notability guidelines) does not deem diplomats presumptively notable, and I must therefore give less weight to opinions in local discussions that express a different view. I consequently maintain the view expressed in the closing statement. Sandstein 16:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion, clearly a closing admin super !vote. I am not able to see the article, I am just looking at the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
- Comment I disagree with the outcome (I think most ambassadors should be considered notable) but otherwise feel that the closer is correct--this is fairly well settled. I'll not urge an overturn because the close was, IMO, within policy and guidelines. But I think it's the wrong result so I cannot endorse. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear A) I've looked at the sources below. They are decent, but not clearly above the WP:N bar IMO. B) I think that keep because ambassador is a reasonable !vote to give less weight to as we've generally agreed that isn't a valid reason to keep an article. I'd have !voted to keep here (sources good enough, I too would rather we keep most ambassadors), but I don't think the close can be said to be outside of discretion. Hobit (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Closers are entitled to apply policy and guidelines with higher weight to debate contributions where the contributions are arguing from a premise not supported in policy. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That suggests to me the old and discredited Wikipedia is a bureaucracy argument. Notability is not determined by policy, but by discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An AFD is not a raw vote, which can be won by stacking it with non-policy-based votes one way or the other — closing admins are allowed, in fact required, to entirely discount votes that are explicitly not grounded in any Wikipedia policy. A discussion with 98 keeps and just two deletes can be closed as a delete consensus if the deletes are supported by a correct and detailed interpretation of policy, while the keeps are on the level of "keep because I said so" or "keep because Baby Jesus will cry if you don't". Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be some sort of happy place for deletionists, but it is not in fact what happens in practice and should not in fact be what happens in practice. "Keep because I say so" may not be a valid argument; but an experienced editor saying "keep because common sense points towards notability even if set-in-stone guidelines don't" is. Nothing is set in stone here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I just don't find the "highest level of their profession" analogy to sports figures convincing. The sports figures situation is an anomaly: it's based on the disproportionate (in comparison to their real-world impact) coverage of sports figures. The world's top-level copyeditors, arborists, and diamond cutters aren't seen as inherently notable. I'm not arguing that the consensus about ambassadors is right, just that it's a consensus established by a broad enough argument that it shouldn't be rejected by a single sparsely argued AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Everyone, please re-read the AfD, particularly Bearcat's findings: Bolduc's notability seems to stem not only from mere being an ambassador, but from his humanitarian background before that, and diplomatic status in several countries during the tenure. There's a serious possibility of cultural bias, as there are significant sources about his Senegal career [2]. Maybe all of that does not add up, but when in doubt, the default should be "no consensus", not a supervote. No such user (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you list which sources you think count as significant coverage toward WP:N? I'm not seeing anything, but I'd be quite pleased to hear WP:N is met. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit:: His bio (page 6) in a brochure issued for visit of Canadian GG to Africa.
- An interview of his given to L'Observateur, apparently
- His statements during the tenure in Congo
- His statements concerning visit of Ghanian president to Canada
- Bolduc helps establish a Trust Fund for Victims of Gender Violence in Ghana
- Mentioned back in 1986 concerning his work with CIDA
- Yeah, I will agree that those are bits and pieces, but there are many (I listed only those that appeared more substantive), and the 1st ref taken verbatim really helps establish a decent short article. But this is DRV, not AFD. No such user (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion I brought forward French-language articles on him and they were dismissed with the comment the ambassadors are basically puppets and all they do is repeat the official line of the government, so articles about them don't count. This is not a valid argument for GNG. - —МандичкаYO 😜 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to "vote" here, because having participated in the original discussion I feel like I'd be just trying to relitigate a decision I didn't "get my way" from, but since I was pinged above I wanted to add some comments for perspective. Even though I voted to keep, I see that I was the only one who based my reasoning on the existence of further sourcing beyond what was already present in the article — every other keep vote essentially boiled down to some variation on "keep because ambassadors are automatically notable", without reference to the fact that (a) Wikipedia does not actually have any such rule, and (b) even the notability claims that we do accept as conferring an automatic keep still have to be supported by reliable sources to actually get the article kept. Meanwhile, several of the delete votes specifically addressed my point about other sources available on Google News, reviewing them and coming to the conclusion that there wasn't enough substance to them. If things had been different, and my comments in the discussion had been signed by someone else while I had been the person assessing it for closure, I would have assessed it the same way: three policy-based delete votes to just one policy-based keep, constituting more than enough for a delete consensus, with three irrelevant keep votes that had to be discounted for lacking a connection to Wikipedia's actual notability or sourcing policies. That's a completely correct and valid close option according to AFD's actual rules. And, of course, it bears remembering that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; if you feel really strongly about it (which I have to admit that I don't), then you do still have the option of putting in the work to write a better article about him than the first one. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Policy is what we do, not what we say. What we do about ambassadors varies widely. (I would personally prefer we keep them all, and I've argued that for years, but the consensus has not been with me) But neither is the consensus that we delete them all. It goes case by case. Where there is no consensus to delete in a given case, thearticle should be kept. There was no such consensus here. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC. I explicitly reject any notion that merely being an ambassador should be taken as evidence of notability; notability is defined for our purposes by coverage in reliable sources. Two of the "Keep" votes made bare assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE and they were quite properly discounted, but two of them did bring sources to the table that appear to be reliable. The closing admin should have either considered them in the close, or at least explained why these sources were discounted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn to NC - both as the sources are plausible enough for WP:N + split headcount, and as the argument that "Ambassadors are of sufficient importance that if Wikipedia is to be a serious reference, it must cover them" is a worthwhile one (whether I'm wholly convinced or not, it's reasonable). WilyD 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Diplomats are not automatically notable, absent actually meeting the WP:GNG. Also, the claim that they are at "top-level" of their professions strikes me as obviously untrue: "foreign minister" (or "Secretary of State", in the U.S.) would be the actual top level for the diplomatic service, since that's who ambassadors report to. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to say I am personally firmly in the all ambassadors (or at least, all ambassadors from major nations) are notable camp. However, I appreciate that the weight of consensus is not as yet with me. Had this been a deletion after a clear consensus then I would not have brought this to DRV. However, it was not. It was clearly a no consensus, which should of course default to keep, and thus I believe was a misinterpretation by the closer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|