Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Pike Bissonnet


 * 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. Vigorous argument from Bearcat, but the conensus leans to keeping the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Pike Bissonnet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, so that does not count as a keep argument. Google just reveals WP mirrors. There's a composer called Alfred bissonnet but not the same person. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has entries in the 1975 and 1979 Canadian Who's Who, published by the University of Toronto Press. There's also an article with biographical details about the ambassador in The Stanstead Journal (1968-11-28). Presumably, given that he died in 1979, many more sources are available off-line. For example. this book mentions a 1977 story about the ambassador, but Google omits the juicy bits. Also, it appears that he often used the nickname, Ted, which can be seen in his 1936 Bishop's yearbook and in newspaper articles like this (1950). Pburka (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ambassador of one reasonably significant country to two other reasonably significant countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * you haven't demonstrated how a notability criterion is met. Have you searched for sources to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, I think, well established that there is disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether or not we should presume that ambassadors (or at least some ambassadors) are notable. There's no point repeating this pantomime in each deletion discussion. Can we agree to disagree on this topic, until a consensus is reached, and trust that the closing administrator will give greater weight to arguments based on policy or consensus? Pburka (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * given that there is no established notability guideline making ambassadors notable, keep !voters should actually demonstrate how WP:BIO is met through coverage. I admire that you make a genuine attempt to do this in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus that ambassadors are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. An ambassador has to actually be the subject of substantial reliable source coverage in his own right — the position does not confer an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of sufficient coverage to get him past WP:GNG on his own steam. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can create a more substantial and better-referenced version, but the volume of sourcing here is not sufficient for him to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep, I agree with Necrothesp, Ambassadors are most likely to meet notability by borderline.Anishwiki12 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither is WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE for deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of adequate sourcing, however, is a reason for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not. We only require that sources be available, and I've demonstrated above that they are. Pburka (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The volume of sourcing that you demonstrated above is not enough to get a person past WP:GNG if they don't inherently pass a subject-specific inclusion guideline; you still need quite a few more sources than that to actually secure an inclusion on purely GNG grounds. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Three times as many? (edit: now reads 'quite a few more') Really? WP:GNG says 'multiple sources are generally expected'. Your arguments are not in line with policy. Pburka (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG requires a substantive volume of sourcing. You can't claim that a person gets past GNG just because you can point to a small handful of distinct sources — people often try to create articles about any personality they can find named in just two distinct newspaper articles, but it doesn't wash. In actual practice, AFD doesn't begin to seriously consider that a person might have passed GNG until the number of distinct sources you can cite is at least into the double digits (and even then it's still not necessarily guaranteed if the coverage in those sources isn't substantive enough — a person's high school or college yearbook, for example, counts for exactly nothing in the notability sweepstakes.) You can get away with fewer sources, even just one, if the person is being claimed to pass a subject-specific guideline such as NPOL or NMUSIC — but if you're making a generic GNG claim, you need to be able to demonstrate a greater volume of sourcing (even if they aren't all comprehensively cited yet, they have to be demonstrable) than has been shown here so far. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Indeed, the coverage in any of these sources is far from satisfactory. (Only one to two short paragraphs long and rather WP:routine) But given the quantity of sources and the fact that most coverage will be offline, I !vote weak keep.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Canada means regular, fulltime diplomat then Keep as he was a diplomat active during a time when newspaper coverage isn't getting digitised and he would have been covered in Canadian and Indonesian papers. If it means part-time diplomat or honourary representative or something, then delete, since these people recieve a lot less coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It almost certainly means he was a full-time professional diplomat. It's the formal title given to ambassadors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.