Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Adamson


 * 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. Fails GNG and the onus is on the keep voter to provide a consensus that Ambassadors are inherently notable (hint, there is no such consensus) Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Adamson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The sources merely confirm she held roles. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see nothing in WP:GNG to state that "Ambassadors are not inherently notable."  An ambassadorship is clear evidence of notability. Seriously, we keep articles on football players who played one season of professional sports in 1987.  An ambassador, particularly where there are multiple third-party sources, is clearly notable.   Montanabw (talk)  16:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ambassadors are not inherently notable, several have been deleted. Your !vote demonstrates no explanation how WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I see NOTHING in either WP:GNG or WP:BIO that discusses notability of ambassadors.  If you have an actual guideline you are working from, then please point it out here.    Montanabw (talk)  20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

if an ambassador is clear evidence of notability that would be listed in WP:BIO which it isn't, many occupations get inherent notability but ambassadors are not mentioned. Please point out a notability guideline which gives ambassadors inherent notability and I'll withdraw these AfD. Ambassador articles have been deleted which shows community consensus that ambassador are not inherently notable, now please demonstrate how this person actually meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the burden is on you to prove that there IS a guideline. In the meantime, how many ambassador articles HAVE been deleted?  List them.  Seriously.  Community consensus can be wrong.   Montanabw (talk)  03:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

similarly I could argue all police sargents are notable. There is no guideline which says that but using your logic the fact it isn't stated gives it inherent notability. Community consensus can be wrong? sorry that's how WP works. Here's a list of some that have been deleted User:LibStar. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you are using a false equivalency. Looks to me like you are just on your own little one-person crusade here.  Montanabw (talk)  04:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please point out the guideline that says ambassadors are inherently notable, I'm still waiting. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

one person crusade? No one can unilaterally delete articles, we use consensus, not your laughable "community consensus can be wrong", if that was true WP wouldn't exist as it does today. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if someone is arguing inherent notability, the burden is on them to point out the relevant guideline, if you can't then your inherent notability argument is Void. We have inherent notability for state and federal politicians, Olympians and so on but nothing for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

now you're trying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, yet you refuse to admit that. The 2 other !voters here I don't think I've interacted with before and have told you the same. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see how ambassadors are inherently notable; whilst in some countries they are often political appointees, in others they are usually just civil servants. Regarding the discussion above between LibStar and Montanabw, I do have to say that the burden is on Montanabw to provide positive evidence that ambassadors are inherently notable, rather than just claiming that there's nothing saying they aren't. Number   5  7  09:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Delete Redirect  to List of Australian Ambassadors to Poland per advice in WP:DIPLOMAT. Ambassadors have no inherent notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Sources merely confirm appointment and are press releases or simple announcements. Subject seems to have had a mostly undistinguished career. Possibly there is more coverage in the Polish press and I would reconsider my !vote if non-trivial coverage can be found there. Per request from the following Ambassadors, who I know of, have been deleted at AfD in the last month Articles for deletion/W. Patrick Murphy, Articles for deletion/Troy Lulashnyk and one is on the fence, Articles for deletion/Roman Vashchuk, because he has some good coverage in host country press but even in that case there is a question because much if it relates to coverage of the position rather than him.  J bh  Talk  11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Changed !vote to Redirect.  J bh  Talk  20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:  I see a systemic bias problem here, most of the articles that were on that list were either women or people from small nations.  Why the vendetta against such articles when half the characters at Pokemon have articles and many very insignificant sports figures. An ambassadorship is pretty notable.   Montanabw (talk)  17:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ermmm.. Of the most recent four, three are male and all are from Canada or Australia I believe. Just because we have atrociously low notability criteria for some things does not mean we should make even more low notability standards. Instead we should be working to raise notability criteria across the board. Since no one has brought it up here you might want to see WP:DIPLOMAT for the current consensus based on discussion at Wikiproject:International Relations and Notibility (People).  J bh  Talk  20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One I forgot. Articles for deletion/Timothy Smart who is a male Ambassador from the UK. There are thousands and thousands of current and former Ambassadors and the composition of the world means most of them are going to be Ambassadors from or to small nations so I see no real indication of systemic bias. J bh  Talk  21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that small and third world nations are unimportant? There's a white, Eurocentric bias right there!  More to the point, they are head of mission, which was one GNG criteria discussed in a long debate that had little clear consensus.  I read the discussion as being heavily dominated by the same people as here, it was not at the project page, it was at the GNG talk, and frankly, we are taking up more bandwidth jawing about this than the article will ever take.   Montanabw (talk)  17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and you still can't point to the notability guideline which gives inherent notability to ambassadors, perhaps in your next reply you can recycle some OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pokemon character argument or just try to overturn consensus and say community consensus is wrong and you must be unilaterally right in this instance. LibStar (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not pointed to anything other than your own statements elsewhere that say they are not. This is a ridiculous argument.  I see no community consensus for wholesale deletion of Ambassador articles, to the contrary, I see some good arguments that Ambasssadors, as "head of diplomatic mission," are in fact notable.  I believe the individual trying to be unilaterally right on this is you, as this appears to be mostly your personal crusade. So let's move on.  Montanabw (talk)  18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying nothing of the sort. What I said is that there are more small, poor, second or third world countries in the world than there are first world ones. Because there are more of these countries there are more Ambassadors to or from or to those countries. More countries, more posts to fill, more potential articles, more AfDs. Just numbers. There may be bias in the appointments but not in the AfD nominations. In the four examples I gave all were from first world countries and three are male and all are white. What is the systemic bias in nominating those articles? The ones that have closed have been closed for lack of notability. That is a pretty strong indication of consensus of lack of inherent notability. As I said before there are many thousands of current and former heads of mission. Most are posted simply to literally "show the flag". In many cases, where an Ambassador is not a senior civil service post, they are prestige postings given to political favorites (Several US Ambassador are not even GS or FS, they are just people who the President owes a favor.) GNG, NPOL and ANYBIO exist to determine which are notable for their work and which are not. J bh  Talk  17:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see it as WP:SYNTH to assess whether a given ambassadorship is notable and which are not - for example, the US ambassador to Kuwait may have been a minor sinecure in 1989, but not in 1992! American ambassadors (and FWIW, I'm American) are a mixed bag, some are hacks, some are not.  But again, this "consensus" was not developed in concert with editors who work extensively on foreign policy articles, and a bunch of lay opinions are really poor consensus, if in fact there is one, which, as I read the linked discussions, appears unclear.   Montanabw (talk)  18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will point out that editorial judgement and application of policy by definition can not be SYNTH as there is no source/claim combination. Also the whole point is that no Ambassadorship is notable. The people who are/were Ambassadors may or may not be notable in and of themselves and we apply notability guidelines to them as individuals. Nor do I see this as a "one person crusade". On this page three people have said Ambassadors have no notability. If you go the other recent AfDs you will see others who make the exact same comment. Whether these are "lay opinions" or not really depends on the background of the editors, which you do not know nor, per Wikipedia policy does it make any difference. Finally, I have previously worked with none of these editors. I come to my opinions based solely on my knowledge and experience applied through my understanding of Wikipedia policy. I suggest that possibly this has hit a nerve with you for some reason. Your last few comments have come, likely unintentionally, rather close to accusations of AfDing articles based on bias, bigotry and sexism. This does not, based on my earlier interactions with you, seem in character. Consensus is not going to change based on this AfD, particularly when only one person is arguing the counter-case. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on this issue—perhaps take it up on one of the discussion pages—but in any case let die a natural death here. Cheers. J bh  Talk  20:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please focus on the issue and not the personalities. Wikipedia has a known problem of white male Eurocentric bias and other than that, yes, we may have to agree to disagree.  Systemic bias is often unconscious and inadvertent.  When a cricket player from Leeds who played a single unremarkable season of professional sport gets his own WP article but ambassadors are presumed not notable, something is seriously screwy with the system.   Montanabw (talk)  22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you commenting on Wikipedia's general systemic bias, however, when you comment on/imply my bias, racism, sexism, tin pot little country-ism and what-not I am going to politely call you on it. To be more blunt the issue is that I felt that your comments were starting to focus on my supposed personality so I figured I would let you know you were close to crossing the line in a gentle manner. Your response is not what I expected and a part of me is sad for that. I see no productive end to this conversation here so I wish you an enjoyable weekend and I hope to work with you again. Either on this matter in another venue or on a different topic entirely. J bh  Talk  01:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are going nowhere. I wasn't referring to anyone personally, most people don't think they have biases; most of us have at least a few, sometimes we are not fully conscious of them.   Montanabw (talk)  19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * True enough. A very good book on identifying and managing cognitive bias and incomplete information is Psychology of Intelligence Analysis by Richard Heuer [//www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/PsychofIntelNew.pdf]. There is a whole body of literature but this book is both free and very good. Over the years I have developed a mental tool set to manage internal and external bias when looking at information sources but that discipline does not always carry over to Wikipedia since I edit as a hobby and to relax. Maybe you will find Heuer's book of interest, maybe not. I simply offer it as a take on cognitive bias which is different from what even those few here who look at the matter formally are likely to have been exposed to. Again, have a great weekend! Cheers. J bh  Talk  20:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

again referring to established guidelines for sportspeople is clearly another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You are fighting a losing battle here. I never said ambassadors should never have articles, indeed many, meet WP:BIO. But your whole premise that they are inherently notable has never been established, and you seem to think blindly this is the case. You now introduce a red herring of WP being white eurocentric biased as somehow a reason to establish inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear, LibStar, that you will argue forever with anyone who disagrees with your agenda. Indeed, you have no room for compromise, and so clearly there is no middle ground. I think your position is ridiculous and founded in ignorance of the nature of international relations, (consensus ≠ right) but it's obvious from the previous debates you have been in that you will not be swayed by anyone, least of all me. I have to choose my battles and preserving articles about notable women will never end.  Might I suggest that an article, List of ambassadors from foo might be a better solution than your wholesale deletion of major work performed by other users?   Montanabw (talk)  19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * wholesale deletion? There are still hundreds of ambassador articles out there which I support retention. Again I ask, please point to the actual notability guideline which gives inherent notability to ambassadors, or do you concede this is now not true, and your illogical reasoning of since it's not mentioned anywhere therefore ambassadors are notable logic is just nonsensical. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with this article being redirected to List of Australian Ambassadors to Poland and I have changed my !vote above to reflect that. J bh  Talk  20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a redirect works as she was also ambassador to Cambodia, montanabw will just accuse you of being biased against 3rd world countries If we direct to ambassadors to Poland. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AGF, Libstar. A redirect with the relevant information merged would be fine with me as a compromise solution.  Frankly, merges and merge tags are often a far better solution than an AfD, as, for one thing, a redlink is an open invitation for the article to be recreated.  Preserving content via a redirect also allows the article to be resurrected later should the individual's notability increase.  I can, in a spirit of meeting people halfway. support a redirect and merge. Montanabw (talk)  18:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * what happened to all ambassadors being inherently notable? You used various failed arguments to argue this including pokemon characters, first grade cricketers, bias against women and third world countries, the illogical since it's not mentioned in WP:GNG it therefore is inherently notable. This ambassador is known for at least 2 ambassadorships. Why are we promoting the richer Poland over Cambodia? Sounds like bias against third world and non whites. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2015 (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.