Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jostein Helge Bernhardsen


 * 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   no consensus. This discussion is more about whether being a diplomat is a presumption of notability or not. We have 2 reasonable opposing viewpoints and I see neither changing. This discussion is also going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and perhaps an RfD is in order to get a better picture of the communities opinion on this. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Jostein Helge Bernhardsen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

This is one of about 90 articles in Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs that may be non-notable, a sub-cat of Category:Diplomat stubs which probably contains more than a thousand of these minimal stubs. These articles are usually written by editors on the basis of national sources, usually government published, though in the case of this article it is the online Store norske leksikon. AFAIK Bernhardsen, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

This is a single Afd. I would be interested to know if people think this kind of article can be bundled.  Klein zach  21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that permanent ambassadors, like Bernhardsen, should be presumed to be notable as they are certain to have generated significant coverage in reliable sources. Ambassadors almost invariably appear in Who's Who books, diplomatic journals, newspapers and almanacs. A quick search for Berhardsen finds several such reference on-line. Presumably more exist off-line, and given that references are likely to be in Norwegian and Ukrainian it's no surprise they're more difficult for English speaking editors to find. Here are a few I found in less than 5 minutes: - a more in-depth search, especially by someone more familiar with Norwegian and Ukrainian sources would, I am certain, yield more results. Pburka (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per my rationale in Articles for deletion/Miyoko Akashi. Comment The first article Pburka posted, the subject of this Afd is mentioned in passing, rather than the subject of the article. WP:GNG is met in when secondary sources are about the subject rather then about a particular event where the subject is mentioned in passing. The question is this case, and the other Afds involving Diplomats are not if they are (or were) an ambassador (easily verifiable), but rather if they meet WP:GNG or WP:Diplomat. Enos733 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No, Ambassadors do not have a presumption of notability. If we are going to say he is notable for being a diplomat, we need sources that go into some detail as to his activities as a diplomat. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a discussion about WP:DIPLOMAT at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). As of now, there does not appear to be a consensus to change the guideline. Enos733 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but not determinative of this AFD in any meaningful way. WP:DIPLOMAT at present says only that satisfying those criteria may establish notability, not that not satisfying it means the article should be deleted. Guidelines also are not to be applied robotically or legalistically, and they are to describe common practice, not dictate it. I'm sure once we have enough of these AFDs keeping permanent ambassadors, DIPLOMAT will eventually reflect that result. And as of now, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - inclusion in national encyclopedia of his country, Store norske leksikon should guide us. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the (complete) SNL entry is as follows: "Jostein Helge Bernhardsen, norsk diplomat, M.A. I utenrikstjenesten fra 1973. Ministerråd ved Norges delegasjon i Genève 1992-95. Avdelingsdirektør i Utenriksdepartementet 1995–2001. Ambassadør i Kiev 2001-06. Ambassadør i Brussel 2006-11." I.e. it lists his appointments in the same way that WP does. SNL is written by users. So does it really qualify as a relaible source? -- Klein zach  04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no indication it is an open wiki; they allow registered users to make suggestions, but they retain editorial control, and this article predates the decision to publish no more print versions. More importantly, their decision that ambassadors of Norway are sufficiently notable predates that decision. So I don't believe it has lost its normative status. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, inclusion in paper encyclopedia (not user generated) meets WP:GNG which overrides or rather supplements any project specific inclusion guideline. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Does the encyclopedia entry equate to "significant coverage?" The question is not whether the subject is an ambassador, but rather if the subject meets WP:GNG or the additional guideline of WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (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.