Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Ignatius

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. Most of the debate centers on whether or not ambassadors are inherently notable. I would like to note that such shortcuts (whether or not supported by specialty guidelines) are based on the assumption that, given the prominence of a certain position, sources must somehow exist somewhere. However, we still need sources and apparently none have been found by the participants in this debate. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ignatius

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, well established that ambassadors and high commissioners are not inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Several mentions in RS, but no apparent direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant coverage is required; ambassadors are not inherently notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I de-prodded the article since it seemed to me that it deserved an AfD. Based on the subject's website[1], after his 2008 retirement from the diplomatic service, he's been fairly active as a newspaper columnist. There are also some external websites, e.g. [2] which indicate that he became active in the christian evangelical movement, and something called Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity lists him as a fellow. I am not sufficiently interested in the subject to dig deeper and see if there is sufficient coverage of his associated with his post-diplomatic activities, but maybe somebody else could take a closer look.... Nsk92 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw those too, but we need coverage of the subject, not by the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In my view ambassadors are generally notable. Between Commonwealth countries the equivalent is High Commissioner, so that the same applies. It should not be difficult to find a reliable source for his diplomatic postings. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have you actually found sources to show WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that holders of notable posts should be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian High Commissioner to Canada is not a notable post. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not? Most ambassador and high commissioner posts are notable. They're very senior people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and several ambassador articles have been deleted. You know there is no inherent notability but recycle this weak argument in ambassador AfDs. LibStar (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most aren't and don't have articles of their own - Australian Ambassador to France, French Ambassador to China and Ambassador of China to Australia. A handful are. There is ongoing debate about whether individuals (like the subject here) should be considered notable by default because of their position but the notability of the position itself is something else. There isn't consensus for "most ambassadors and high commissioners are notable" at the moment but it certainly remains a valid opinion. One I disagree with, but valid nonetheless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You think that postholders are only notable if their post has an article. I would disagree with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, but I think that postholders are likely to be notable if their post does have an article. You were talking about notable posts, rather than notable people. For everyone else it's a case-by-case basis and we generally fall back to WP:GNG. I disagree with the premise that "ambassadors are notable". I lived in Canberra, a small city filled with diplomats. Those ambassadors were just ordinary people like everyone else and there was nothing notable about them at all. They drove the same cars as everyone else, ate at the same restaurants and their kids played in the same soccer teams. Notable people can tick those boxes too but the point is that they were just ordinary mid-tier public servants whose departments happened to be outside their own countries, overseas. Were they working for the department of foreign affairs / state department in their own country, they'd never be considered notable. I don't think they become notable by default because their desk is slightly further away. But others are notable without question. Among Australians, John Berry is a rock-star. His sweaters are almost notable in their own right. Ambassadors and other diplomats should be judged on a case-by-case basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Two of us have voted to keep. The objection seems to be that the appropriate list article for his predecessors does not exist. Does that not point to a lacuna in WP that should be filled? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And three of use have opined for deletion. Not quite sure what you're asking. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mere holding of an office does not itself confer notability. The guy's website to promote his book seems to be defunct. I see some blog mentions of him and some columns he wrote for The Malaysian Insider, but I'm not seeing any independent, significant third-party coverage of the man himself. There may be some material in a foreign language out there, but I'm a delete in the absence of anything forthcoming. Neutrality^talk 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. several ambassador articles have been deleted so the argument that ambassadors are inherently notable is plainly void. this person fails to get sufficient coverage. LibStar (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was under the impression that ambassadors were regarded as inherently notable; in fact, I created a few articles myself on that basis. Is anyone able to point me to the relevant deletion debates? St Anselm (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here's a few afds of ambassadors deleted:

LibStar (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. But the first one is a bad example, since he was never an ambassador anyway (and one editor changed their !vote when that came to light). The second one, I note, was an high commissioner to Kirbati. I think it's definitely fair to say that ambassadors are generally notable. St Anselm (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, there have been several discussions. The closest we've ever gotten is agreement that ambassadors from one major country to another major country would generally be notable (no inherently, but logically). There is no consensus (anywhere) that all ambassadors are inherently notable, quite the opposite. WP:NPOL specifically removes them as a result. High Commissioners and Ambassadors have the same rank, the former generally means both are part of the Commonwealth. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider:

...as examples of other ambassadors with articles recently deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't read the source, but there looks to be significant third party coverage in People at the Peak: The Who's who of Malaysia (a publication mentioned at Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies). And this is why I think ambassadors are generally notable: they generally get significant coverage in publications such as this. St Anselm (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, most done, and we still need "multiple". St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is another one. St Anselm (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment it is definitely not fair to say all ambassadors are notable, no consensus for this in AfDs and no notability criterion states this. There is no inherent notability Whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2015 (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.