Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Baird


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 00:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nick Baird

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable diplomat. Been there, seen that but what has he done to become notable? Very few and trivial mentions in sources. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy I'd like to rehab this if there's consensus for deletion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are ambassadors of notable countries (in this case the UK) in notable countries (in this case Turkey) considered notable for their position alone? Seems no less notable than the likes of Simon Fraser (diplomat) anyway. More content here: Lack of content alone is not really a reason for deletion. The article's title should probably be changed though, to Nicholas Baird. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Troutman, how are you going to rehab it? Do you know the gentleman personally? Did you work with him, as a diplomat or a journalist and you know how he achieved outstanding notability? I mean, if he managed to convince his government, say, to the necessity of the Queen to realise a state visit to Turkey, for instance, after 20 or 25 years? Well, if that professional success was not reflected in the media, it still does not help us. Or he simply did his job to receive and send delegations, organize receptions etc? Those receptions would certainly be covered by the socıety pages of the press, at least in the capital that he served but that kind of news do not really help us establish notability. They dont even help to verify that the person exists, because we have no doubt about that. There are official CVs (of him also) everywhere in the internet. (The user whose primary mission in WP is to follow me everywhere in WP -I guess to prevent me from destroying it suddenly- has found a very good one.) Indeed we call these articles BLP but in fact we dont make simple biographies. There are specialized biography sites in the web, people come to us to see an academic approach, as this is an encyclopedia. I am not sure if I could explain it well enough so I will summarise. We are sure about the existence of Mr Baird. Personally I am also sure he made a good job here (I live in Ankara). But that was his job. I need to see if he did smth outstanding and that was not kept in the secret archives or known only by personal contacts but also has been reflected in reliable (written) sources. Got anything? Then we dont need to wait for deletion, the article is all yours to rehab it. Thanks for that. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. I wasn't watching this discussion. No, I don't know this guy and have no special insight into the subject.
 * At the risk of being labeled a deletionist, I !vote userfy when I see a subject that might be notable but isn't currently up to snuff. I don't want eyesores like this to persist but I also hate to lose the seeds of potentially good content. I'm also a proponent of the concept that all ambassadors should be presumed notable, much as WP:MILPEOPLE does for flag/general officers. (I am aware that the consensus opposes this idea.) I collect these articles (I currently have three, looking to make this number four) and hold them (for months, if needed) until I'm able to rehab them. If I can't improve them in the immediate future they'll sit until decades from now when more historical analyses have been written and I can add those sources to support notability via GNG.
 * I'm not voting keep right now because this article doesn't meet retention criteria and I don't currently have the time or inclination to prove otherwise. I'd just like the opportunity to fix what's broken at my own pace out of public view. I encourage you to check out the other articles I've created, which are linked from my user page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a note, consensus doesn't oppose the idea that ambassadors are inherently notable (an idea I also agree with). There's actually no consensus either way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. We are kidding, right? As holder of both the CMG and the CVO, he holds two awards either of which would be considered to confer notability under WP:ANYBIO #1 on their own! We have long established that anything over a CBE is sufficient. These honours aren't given out in cornflakes boxes. If he is notable enough to have these awards (for actually doing something constructive as opposed to just being alive) he is easily notable enough for the minor celebrity fest that is Wikipedia. And naturally, he does have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Necrothesp above, plus there are plenty of references to make this is good article, , and to name a few. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 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.