Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyoko Akashi (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Miyoko Akashi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

last AfD 2 years ago was no consensus. But I notice a number of keep voters used an incorrect assumption of inherent notability which is not true. Secondly the Japanese coverage found was shown to be limited. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there a notability guideline for diplomats? That would be helpful. I notice there seems to be lots of coverage in Lithuanian. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * there is no notability guideline for diplomats, there was an attempt for a guideline to make ambassadors all notable but that failed. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've read through the previous discussion (one I did not take part in), and thinking about it, I would agree with the view expressed there that if WP:POL includes every representative of the people, then diplomats should cover every representative of a country. The sense I get is that there is no consensus as to whether ambassadors are inherently notable — not that there is a consensus that they are not. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * no, you are arguing ambassadors are inherently notable when they are definitely not. Many have been deleted. There was a discussion at WP:BIO months ago to give inherent notability to ambassadors which failed. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. As a side note: the argument that Ambassadors are 'representatives of the people' and should be presumed notable based on WP:NPOL requires a gross misreading on NPOL particularly noting that most Ambassadors are appointed civil servants or, from less developed or politically inclusive countries, sinecures. While it is arguable that there is not consensus that Ambassadors are not presumed notable there is certainly no consensus that they are and that is what is required to make them not subject to GNG. So it is a distinction without a difference. J bh  Talk  14:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Go back and read again. The gross misreading is yours. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * no gross misreading from Jbh. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I will clarify my point, since neither of you has grasped it. Ambassadors are not 'representatives of the people'. Nobody has said they are. Nobody has said that NPOL applies except by analogy. Ambassadors are representatives of nations. An elected politician can pocket their expenses and their bribes and faff about for five years, and still be considered notable by virtue of having been elected. Similarly, it makes no difference whether an ambassador is an appointed civil servant or (as in America) a sinecure: by virtue of having been appointed to represent their nation, they are a figure in world affairs. I am clearly not alone in thinking this, since it is a case made by others on the previous AfD for this article. It is not a consensus view, but nor is the contrary view. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I realise now that this is what you mischaracterise in your rationale as "an incorrect assumption of inherent notability which is not true", but a more honest statement would have been "a conviction of inherent notability that I do not share". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but I do not agree with it and I think the analogy with NPOL is stretched well past breaking. Specific notability criteria ie presumed/inherent notability, exist because they presume that, by virtue of those criteria, that reliable sources are likely to exist even if not readily found. One can presume that material exists on, for instance, a national level political figure. (Note - I do not concede NPOL is a good policy only that it is one and it must be dealt with.) In the case of Ambassadors most of their work is not public, it deals with state-state international relations. There is no reason to presume that sources on them will be available and indeed the vast majority have done nothing worthy of note and have no significant coverage. Those Ambassadors who do make a significant public contribution will be covered in the press or in some other reliable source so they will pass GNG. If they have done nothing of note there will be no significant coverage and no need for a stand alone article. Arguing for presumed notability in those cases is arguing for perma-stubs or articles based on non-independent sources.  J bh  Talk  18:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. As was the case two years ago when the article was last discussed at AFD, the article still lacks in-depth coverage to demonstrate actual notability as mandated by the General Notability Guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambassadors, unlike politicians, are appointed. There's no inherent notability, and this particular diplomat does not meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 10 September 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.