Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Adam


 * 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 as I simply see this AfD going nowhere else and there's apparently no need for AfD time (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

André Adam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per our policy on Subjects notable only for one event (BLP1E). It matches each of the three criteria listed there. The only seemingly notable source outside of the event is that of his employer, the United Nations, which is hardly independent. We need to establish why this person is notable through extensive discussion among reliable, independent sources rather than saying "he's an ambassador, therefore he must be notable!"  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Clearly notable as an Ambassador to Algeria, Zaire and the United States.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Notable as ambassador for several countries over the years. His death also got plenty of media coverage which provides the fact that he wasnt "just another ambassador". good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Ambassadors get articles per well-established reality. Given the tone of the nominator (the United Nations "is hardly independent", seriously?), I consider this to be frivolous. James F. (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Victims of bombing attacks aren't necessarily notable, but ambassadors are notable. epicgenius @ 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Serious thought and relisting Normally, I would say keep. However, seriously think if ambassadors are notable people. I think so. But then Wikipedia considers TV episodes as inherently notable, which I disagree. To be fair, I then ask "are ambassadors automatically notable?" I say yes but welcome the discussion. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for his extensive diplomatic career, including three ambassadorships. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having read the subsequent posts, I realize that I was insufficiently familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of ambassadors. As such, I am changing my vote to a delete (and will perform better due diligence in the future). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Long-standing Wikipedia practice in fact holds that ambassadors are not intrinsically notable (as members of a national legislature are, for example.)  I know that the editors above wrote in good faith, but I have participated in several AFD discussions about Ambassadors, and it is simply untrue that they get articles. See: WP:DIPLOMAT.  I would, of course, change my vote if it could be shown that sufficient in-depth, reliable sources exist to estabilsh notability under WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I too am concerned of the notion that diplomats are apparently so notable that they need not satisfy our other policies to warrant an article. No one appears to have tackled the concerns raised i.e. that there is a lack of reliable sources based on this person. I mentioned the United Nations as not being independent, because his work was heavily associated with them (it's like how universities have articles on their lecturer). Useful source of information, but not a way to establish notability. Maybe some sources which give something other than a fleeting mention of this person outside of the terrorist attack can be used?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I ran a news archive search on Proquest [http://search.proquest.com/news/results/6C50B8CCD41842EFPQ/1/$7b$22limiters$22:$5b$5d,$22mqlversion$22:$221.2$22,$22v$22:$221$22,$22sort$22:$22relevance$22,$22param$22:$7b$22NAVIGATORS$22:$22facetlist,sourcetype,decade$28filter$3d110$2f0$2f*,sort$3dname$2fascending$29,year$28filter$3d1100$2f0$2f*,sort$3dname$2fascending$29,yearmonth$28filter$3d120$2f0$2f*,sort$3dname$2fascending$29,month$28sort$3dname$2fascending$29,day$28sort$3dname$2fascending$29,pubTitle,objectype,language$22,$22LEMMATIZE$22:$22true$22,$22collapseDuplicates$22:$22$22,$22collection$22:$22MSTAR,Patents$22,$22qtf_synonym:use_dictionaries$22:$22short_spellvars.aut$22,$22RESUBMITFLAGS$22:$227984$22,$22ftblock$22:$22740842+1+660848+670831+194104+194001+670829+194000+660843+660840+104$22,$22removeDuplicates$22:$22true$22,$22ENCODING$22:$22utf-8$22,$22NAVIGATION$22:$22true$22,$22RS$22:$22OP$22,$22qtf_synonym:querysynonyms$22:$22true$22,$22SPELL$22:$22suggest$22,$22bundles$22:$221006742+1006744+1008414+1008416+1007154+1006446+1006442+1008804+1006953+1006956+1006959+1008595+1006673+1006051+1006097+1005670+1007144+1007716+1006058+1006056+1008425+1006091+1008526+1005879+1006910+1005672+1005878+1005877+1005671+1005678+1006151+1005676+1006193+1006968+1006730+1007272+1005635+1006089+1005685+1007330+1000282+1006728+1006729+1005880+1006359+1008712+1006360+1005696+1005692+1005916+1007874+1007871+1006418+1008500+1006417+1000278+1005701+1007624$22,$22chunkSize$22:$2250$22,$22DUPREM_SLOT1$22:$22bsumdupid$22,$22QT_PIPELINE$22:$22scopesearch$22,$22instance$22:$22prod.academic$22$7d,$22serializer$22:$22std1.5$22,$22searchterms$22:$5b$7b$22name$22:$22$22,$22qry$22:$22$5c$22Andr$e9+Adam$5c$22$22,$22fld$22:$22citationBody$22,$22top$22:$22AND$22$7d$5d,$22navs$22:$5b$5d,$22meta$22:$7b$22UsageSearchMode$22:$22Advanced$22,$22dbselections$22:$22news$22,$22SEARCH_ID_TIMESTAMP$22:$221459102797723$22,$22siteLimiters$22:$22SourceType,+DocumentType,+Language$22$7d,$22querytype$22:$22advanced:news$22$7d?accountid=10226], only 146 hits over the decades, most of them ot other people named Andres Adams. A couple to his death in Brussels.  The rest are routine mentions connected with some aspect of the routine woek of an ambassador.  Hits at google books  appear to be mere listings.   I'm just not finding notability.  I understand the impulse to write articles like this in the wake of a tragic death in an atrocity.  But I can't locate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I too ran Google news searches before the event and came up blank (to be fair he's been retired for some time), but there was nothing in books either. I'd imagine almost every person killed in the attack has some national or at least local newspaper which wrote a story about them including what their career was. The policy I listed in the nomination exists to prevent exactly this type of issue. If it weren't for the attack, any attempt at creating this article would be simply speedy deleted. No question asked.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note (Written in response to question brought ot my talk page.) The rule that beiong an ambassador is not not sufficient to support notability, notability of ambassadors must be established by sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG, applies to the ambassadors of all countries. Lots of people have important jobs, but do not have articles because they do their important jobs quietly and without drawing public attention.  Ambassadors are often notable, they will have more than the routine mentions that all ambassadors have, routine announcement of their appointment, receptions attended and so forth.  A notable ambassador would  do something (such as play a significant role in an important negotiation)  that draws in-depth profiles in reliable media, or serious analysis of his work in major media, books, and/or policy journals.  We have many articles on ambassadors, but only a fraction of ambassadors have articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This so-called blanket statement that every ambassador warrants a Wikipedia article is a fallacy. While we have guidelines that suggest some topics are likely to be notable enough for an article, one should never use this as a reason in itself when adequate reasons are presented that it violates our policies on notability.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As for now he got a lot of coverage as a former ambassador, killed in terror attack. This is in addition for being not just ambassador, but an ambassador to US and UN. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many ambassadors are notable, and an ambassador killed under these circumstances would surely generate enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, even if the pre-existing coverage were somehow found insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot see a reason why an American ambassador to Belgium should be more notable than the Belgian ambassador to the United States of America. 2001:7D0:88E4:CC80:E4D0:770C:4A8F:127E (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes right! Keep this entry. Royalrec (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd agree that ambassadors aren't inherently notable, but Adam was, at the time of his retirement, one of the highest ranking diplomats in Belgium. The fact that he was his country's Ambassador to the United States and Ambassador to the UN should be enough. Rockhead126 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable diplomat. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A clearly notable individual throughout his life, as an Ambassador to Algeria, Zaire & also the United States.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep ambassadors are almost always notable, this wasn't some diplomatic underling but the ambassador from Belgium to the US & UN among others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agreed, ambassadors are almost always notable. Wikipedia's guidelines are just that: guidelines, not something set in stone. Mr. Adams served in some of the highest profile diplomatic postings in the world - the U.S., UN, among others - and even if he had served in smaller countries, he would merit inclusion in references, diplomatic histories and, yes, Wikipedia. The tendency on Wikipedia to delete figures in the public service sphere - national Ambassadors, diplomats, First Spouses, large city mayors, and sometimes even cabinet ministers - is incredibly short sighted. Scanlan (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors coming to this page: This page could be kept it someone would find reliable sources (newspapers; books) detailing significant activity by Mr. Adams, a crucial role in some diplomatic negotiation, initiating a cultural project - something of that sort that attracted significant coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * note I feel like the Grinch at the Christmas party, but I do like to double check myself, so I googled him again, and continue to find that while he is mentioned in lists of the dead, like this Wall Street Journal article, journalists can find nothing to say about his career beyond the fact that he was posted to various embassies. He is known for no accomplishment An nice chart  has been made showing, the Belgian Ambassadors who preceded and followed him in various posts; none are blue-linked.  The reality seems to be that he was not known for anything beyond doing his job as ambassador.  Ambassadors often aren't, which is why they aren't automatically given pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the amount of editors who have shown interest in keeping this article, I'm surprised no one has yet to find more sources on Adam to help establish notability. If anything this just makes me believe more strongly that there really aren't any sources out there, other than the UN bio page.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion that high ranking diplomat, killed in the terror attack has the right for an article. Also the problem in searching the sources for me, that most of them has to be in French, which I don't know. So, it would be nice to have someone french speaking to look at it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need to translate the text in sources (or at least not any better than a Google translate) to establish notability. Although, someone from a French-speaking country may have more preferential Google settings. There is no article on the French Wikipedia and no mention of Andre Adam on the attacks articles.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  08:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding attack articles, I would say it's a bit of exaggeration to say "no mention of Andre Adam on the attacks articles". What about those:, , , , , , , , . :) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Wikipedia "articles".  Jolly  Ω   Janner  10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, one Wikipedia article can't be used to establish notability of another topic, but this 2016_Brussels_bombings exists anyway. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it in regards to notability, but as a potential route solution finding French language sources on Adams.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  12:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. In what way would the Belgian Ambassador to the United States and Permanent Representative to the UN not be notable? I happen to be one of those who believes all ambassadors are notable, but to suggest that diplomats in these positions aren't notable beggars belief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If one were to exclude the memorials by news agencies on the back of the Brussels attacks, we are only left with www.un.org/press/en/1998/19980908.bio3176.html - a single press release from the UN on his appointment. Per Notability "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." I too expected Adam to be a notable topic and was hoping to providing plenty of sources to expand the article, but came up short. The concept that all ambassadors meet WP's notability guidelines is dangerous. Adam is a relatively recent, long-serving and highly ranked diplomat. I cannot imagine what woeful quantity of sources exist on an unknown ambassador whose carer spanned 2 years from the 18th century (hypothetical example).  Jolly  Ω   Janner  13:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a sad fact that if you're a teenager who does something moronic on Youtube, a singer who is popular for three days or a footballer who kicks a ball around a few times for a living then you'll have far more internet coverage than a senior diplomat or civil servant who's devoted their life to their country (especially one who isn't British or American). That does not mean they're more notable and it is a serious (but unfortunately all too common) misinterpretation of the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines to suggest that is the case. Common sense says that some people are clearly notable for the position they hold whatever a strict interpretation of WP guidelines may say. That's why we have WP:IAR; to prevent this overly proscriptive interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. It has driven me to give a more vigorous seacrh of publications before the time of the Internet. I have found a couple of examples, where it looks like there may be more than just a "fleeting" mention. There's only a snippet view available, so I cannot use the sources in any meaningful way and it would appear as though they are not devoted to Adam as the subject. I'll ping to see if anyone else thinks there's a chance with them: Daily Report and Agricultural Libraries Information Notes.  Jolly   Ω   Janner  18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As he clearly meets WP:GNG by being an ambassador to the UN and multiple countries. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Being Belgian ambassador to Zaire and the US places him as the senior Belgian diplomat of his generation, everything else aside. Keeping Systematic bias in mind, would we be having this discussion if he were, say, British or American? I've got J. Christopher Stevens in mind as a parallel. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Stevens was killed in the line of duty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In my earlier days on Wikipedia (like, a whole year ago) I argued for keeping ambassadors. I also argued for keeping the names of the victims of terrorist attacks.  If there is a group of editors willing to change that policy, and keep/list the names and list them with brief (well-sourced) bios of the victims of terrorist attacks, I am willing to join such a group and change that policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping, since  Ambassador is a political appointee.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2016 (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.