Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald MacLaren of MacLaren


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Donald MacLaren of MacLaren

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod, there seems to be agreement that his diplomatic career is not sufficiently notable, so the issue is whether Scottish clan chiefs are inherently notable. Clan chief is now just a title with no powers, and not that important. Even in Scotland, many of the clans with chiefs are small and obscure, even many Scots people with some knowledge of the history of their clan could not tell you who the chief is, and I double if many of them currently have articles. We previously reached agreement that Lord Lieutenants are not inherently notable.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Being both a clan chief and full ambassador seem adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - ambassadors are not inherently notable, nor are clan chiefs, not are failing candidates, nor are the CEOs of small companies, nor are senior public servants. He doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL or any of the other inclusion criteria I could think of. If there's something I missed, I'm happy to reconsider but being non-notable in a range of fields does not make you collectively notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Clan chiefs have notability because they appear in sources such as Whitaker's Almanack. Ambassadors have notability because they appear in sources like the Diplomatic List and Europa yearbook.  Having such prestige and status means the person appears in Who's Who and that's good enough for our purposes.  Compare, for example, with professional footballers or Olympic athletes who get automatic entries as a matter of course when they have nothing like this level of coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the prevailing consensus; at least it hasn't been each time the notability of ambassadors has been discussed. Footballers and athletes are notable for other reasons - there is a presumption that they have been the subject of coverage as the member of a group/team, rather than individually - participating in sports at a level that receives international television coverage. Some footballers are on television every week, though they might not be the subject of individual coverage. You certainly can't say the same about ambassadors.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whitaker's Almanack is an invaluable source precisely because it includes a lot of otherwise obscure information, including e.g. failed parliamentary candidates, I don't think a brief mention in this work or e.g. Who's Who confers automatic notability. PatGallacher (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - A Google search only pulls up one RS article - and that article merely mentions him as a "colourful" candidate with no real chance of winning. I agree with conclusions drawn by St ★ lwart . --Enos733 (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * delete no inherent notability in either of his roles. Many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 29 December 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.