Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Friederich


 * 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. Skomorokh  17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Friederich

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is just not notable - and amounts to a BLP1E

Someone will say "ambassadors are notable" - but consider, Switzerland is a very small country and Luxembourg is tiny. Switzerland's ambassador to Luxembourg will be no more than a medium grade civil servant with no real status.

The crime and conviction are then all we have. So we've got "medium grade diplomat convicted of money laundering and smuggling" and given a moderate sentence. Not enough for a biography. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, being ambassador is enough to merit an article, with or without his criminal convictions. I'd disturbed and offended by the argument "X is an unimportant country anyways". The Minister of Finance for Togo is as deserving of an article as the Minister of Finance for the United Kingdom. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That argument would mean that someone who played for the Vatican's national football team would be as important as someone who played for Brazil. In a large nation someone achieving ambassadorial status has acheived something significant - thousands of other diplomats of that nation will never reach that. With a small nation, an ambassador may be just about the only diplomat it has in a country, and being one is simply not as much as an acheivement. Plus an ambassador of a powerful nation will have more of an impact on world affairs than one from a small nation. There are 6.7 million Swiss and less than 0.5 million citizens of Luxembourg - an Ambassador to lux is not in the same league as the one to China, and a being the Swiss ambassador is not as significant as being that of Russia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete An ambassador would be a local un-elected public official, and lacking notability in the normal manner, fails POLITICIAN.  MBisanz  talk 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I disagree that an ambassador is automatically notable. No guideline says that; and nor should it. We must look at WP:GNG. The coverage of his legal troubles is quite substantial. There could be an argument that WP:BLP1E applies, but I think the coverage is persistent enough to warrant inclusion and he was a reasonably significant (if not notable) person otherwise. Can be convinced to switch to delete, though. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage all seems to be news coverage in 2002 (arrest) and 2005 (sentenced). So, it isn't really "persistent"? See this and you'll find the hits since 2005 are false positives.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Ambassadors are notable, as high level national officials. One might conceivably quibble over the level, but how can one call it local?  I am also not quite willing to write off the Swiss as having no significant influence   in world affairs--for about 700 years they have had an influence very disproportionate to their population. I'll  admit that Luxembourg is another matter, but the subject was also ambassador to Cuba--another player in world affairs to a extent disproportionate to its size, and to Vietman-- the same can be said about there.  The sources are sufficient, including for the less reputable parts of his career, which are the problematic ones in terms of BLP.     DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (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.