Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Moran (diplomat)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

David Moran (diplomat)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies him as notable under any other rationale. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Ambassadors are not inherently notable, but I don't think that's the same as to say that ambassadors are inherently non-notable. This one is on his fourth ambassador-level post, from a not-insignificant country (UK) to another not-insignificant country (Switzerland), which I think makes him significant, though perhaps not rigorously notable in the strict application of WP rules. More for amusement than anything else, I've added a couple of references to the article. Anyone with an open mind about ambassadors might like to watch a clip about the BBC Ambassadors series, which Moran was consultant to, here. Stanning (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oxford University Press thinks he's notable (he's included in their Who's Who). That's good enough for me. Pburka (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, which specifically says that precedent is that ambassadors are not inherently notable. I am not convinced that the sources used meet Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on how an Oxford University Press publication might fail WP:RS? Pburka (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ...also, WP:POLITICIAN says that ambassadors aren't covered by that guideline, nothing more. Pburka (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject isn't a poltiician – he's a career diplomat. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply. Stanning (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The publication you cite is self-published. "Who’s Who includes autobiographical information" Per WP:SELFPUBLISH it is not a reliable source.
 * Perhaps WP:Politicians does not apply, but that like the other special policies are intentionally low exceptional requirements for special populations to be included. This person does not meet general notability guidelines. He does not meet the closest applicable low-standard guideline. I still say delete.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the article Who's Who (UK). It's not self-published. "Inclusion has always been by prominence in public life or professional achievement." Stanning (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not self published, the entry in that book is the subject's own self description, which is also problematic. The book you cited is the original and has some good marks on its reputation, but in my opinion, all Who's who listings are dubious. If it had been a person writing about their own work in a newspaper, or an interview in which a person talked about themselves while being broadcast elsewhere, it would not be enough of a source to establish notability. See Who's Who scam for more information about these kinds of books. I still say delete unless better sources are identified.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You still seem to misunderstand the role of the UK Who's Who. Yes, the entries are primarily the subjects' own self descriptions, but there are two important points: (1) the descriptions are fact-checked, not blindly reproduced, (2) you can't buy your way into the UK Who's Who, so that your claim about "Who's Who scams" is irrelevant. People are selected for UK Who's Who on gounds of notability. Unlike the many knock-offs it's a trusted source, routinely held in library reference sections. Flaming Ferrari, the nominator, opines that an entry in UK Who's Who doesn't count for Wikipedia, but in my opinion it's at least an indication of notability. I still say keep on the grounds given in my first comment above. Stanning (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not my place to evaluate this Who's Who more than I already have. If it is so commonly used, then I would expect it to be questioned by others just as I have. If you feel strongly about this source draft an explanation about it, let's post to WP:RSN, and I will help you set up an RFC so that now and for the future we can have a collected body of opinion about using this work in notability discussions. I am not comfortable making this judgement alone. The source is odd as compared to usual sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There was a discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_53#Is_Who.27s_Who_a_reliable_source.3F here] about whether the UK Who's Who is a reliable source and it seemed to be accepted that inclusion is independently and reliably done. This arose from a very lengthy discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley/Archive_3#Recent_IP_comments here]. To me their inclusion standards are generally quite a lot higher than here. In Who's Who (UK) I see WSJ quoted as saying "an entry in Who's Who 'really puts the stamp on eminence on a modern British life'" (but WSJ is just a rag, isn't it?). However, and it is quite a big however, once they decide to include you then you draft your own entry. Downright falsehoods hopefully won't get by but you can omit embarrassing stuff. So the entry may well not be NPOV. So I think this and Debrett's People of Today (the latter being stronger on fact-checking?) establish notability but with a bit of doubt about verifiability. The FCO stuff can't establish notability but will be fine for fact-checking. So, all in all, I think these sources add up OK. Thincat (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * keep - as per discussion above. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an ongoing debate, but in the opinion of many of us, ambassadors of major countries are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as appointed ambassador between two economic powers, he is inherently of interest to an encyclopedia.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:09, 26 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.