Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian F. Harrington


 * 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. John Pack Lambert, it's unclear whether you'd like to keep a copy for draft or whether you don't feel his article can be improved. If you would like it, just ping me. Happy to provide it. Star  Mississippi  02:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Julian F. Harrington

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ambassadors are not default notable. The sourcing on Harrintong is largely to primary sources. This is not the stuff on which we can base an article. Pretty much the only non-prmary source is an incidental mention in a memoir of another career forieng service officer. This is just not the level of sourcing we need to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just realized I created this article back in 2011. At that time I was under the impression that all ambassadors were default notable. I have since realized this is not the case. I have to admit I have no memory of actually creating this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a first for me (someone arguing to delete an article that they created) I recommend you draftify it and then follow the process here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Deleting_your_draft it doesn't seem like good use of community efforts to discuss this further. CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done it, a couple-few times. AfD is supposed to be a consideration and discussion of the merits of a marginal article. I doesn't have to be adversarial. Any editor can nominate an article. Granted, an AfD for an article one has created should be really rare. But I mean it's not like people don't ever publish articles that they later realize are marginal. What the heck are you supposed to do then? And I mean that's AfD'ing on purpose; turns out OP didn't even realize he had made the article.


 * So, do you have a view on the merits of the article? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a view on the merits of the article. I've deliberately avoided looking into it in the context of the bizarre circumstances here. Your comment above is about three times the length of the article, suggesting that other editors might be deeply invested in it is tenuous. A PROD would be a sensible compromise if you don't think my drafity and delete is the logical approach, even after the nominator got to this point. CT55555 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see... commenting when you don't have an opinion on the merits of the article, going around and insulting other editors including on their talk pages, and suggesting an article like this should be PRODded, which is... incorrect, I'm hoping that this is not your usual practice in AfD discussions? Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good faith feedback. I always try to listen to critical feedback. I have understood that going to someone's talk page is the correct action if you have feedback for an editor. A courtesy that I note you have not extended to me, even though this is the second time you have critique of me (on the same topic). Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to continue giving me feedback.
 * However, as you've asked in public, I will answer. I have engaged in AfD 289 times to date. I've had cause to comment on my perceptions of interactions or nominations, I think, three times with two editors. The other one is currently at WP:ANI for the reasons I gave feedback on. So me giving feedback is rare and has occurred approximately 1% of the times I've engaged at AfD.
 * If you can point to any insult I've made, I will quickly apologise. I did not seen one, and yet you seem to have identified at least two people who I've insulted.  Please let me know who these editors are. I would like to attempt to make peace with them.
 * I do welcome the feedback that my recommendation was erroneous - and would welcome more feedback on that. Specifically do you think the community consensus would not allow a draftification of a 53 word stub by its author? That does seems unlikely to me in a place where common sense is prioritized over strict rule adherence. And why would a PROD not be a better solution? CT55555 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn’t April 1, is it? Jacona (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Do you have anything to say on the merits of the article? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done this multiple times. Once on a congressional candidate when I later realized failed congressional candidates were not default notable. At least once on a state level beauty pageant winner when I realized those were not default notable. I think once on an article on a columnists whose work mainly appeared in just one paper when I realized those were not really default notable. There may be a few other cases. I think I have seen others do it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, I guess. It's marginal. Ambassador is usually a pretty big deal, and it'd be reasonable to hold that the assumption would be that some ambassadors should be assumed to be worth documenting, since after all we are not running out of paper. I think people who were ambassadors from one major power to another, if more than briefly, to merit consideration. After all if you served in the Nebraska state legislature in 1911-1913 we will document your life.


 * Harrington was only ambassador to Panama tho. It says here he was deputy director -- number two man, I think that would mean -- of the Office of the Foreign Service, an important arm of the US Department of State, during the Cold War. It's a reliable ref, but oddly I don't see this mentioned anywhere else, so, huh. But even if true, that's not a high enough office to merit an article. There's not much else that I find right off so he doesn't meet WP:BIO as far as I can see. Nor am I seeing anything else such as works produced or being involved in important events.


 * He's got bluelinks on both sides on both sides of the "succession" box for Ambassador to Panama, and I think it's pretty mediocre to go around breaking strings of bluelinks in those boxes. Why. How does that help the reader following along the box. It will degrade the experience of some readers. Why have the boxes if we're going to do that. On that basis alone I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion, but we're here. And there's really nothing to hang a Keep vote on, which is too bad, but it is what it is. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We have decided that ambassadors are not default notable. When any country can potentially have over 100 at any given time, the notion that being an ambassador is a big deal is not supported. Ambassadors do not create policy, legislators do. Strings of blue links when they are a bunch of articles lacking adequate sources are not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2022 (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.