Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bradtke


 * 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. Tone 18:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Robert Bradtke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable American diplomat. Was not able to find any RS about him. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Added some citations-- leaning towards keep, but I'm not sure how much of the coverage on him qualifies as non-routine. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything covering him specifically per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Our subject is found in quite a few books. I also find many passing mentions. Foreign Sources. Express, Mojahrvatska, News AM, Many passing mentions like; Radio Free Europe, Total-croatia-news, News.am, Asbarez, Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are any of these "significant coverage"? It makes sense that he would be mentioned in lists of ambassadors or in sources relating to  relations between the countries he was an ambassador to. But they may not contribute to GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Does this count WP:POLITICIAN? It is an international post. How do people get appointed?  A lot of politics involved surely.  Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Croatia.  Category:Ambassadors of the United States shows a list of all the nations there are American ambassadors sent to, and each one of them has a lot of articles in it. Has this sort of discussion come up before somewhere?   D r e a m Focus  03:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep My vote of keep is a vote for for Jury nullification of WP:POLOUTCOMES - standing consensus can overrule as it does with WP:NFOOTY notability. WP:NOTPAPER An Ambassador belongs in any encyclopedia. Most of the other Ambassadors of the United States to Croatia are on WP as Dream Focus pointed out (and they should be). Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Croatia. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but where an SNG isn't met the person must WP:GNG to do so, and I don't believe he's done that yet. Neither of the Croatian sources pass WP:GNG (the Vecernji one's a 404). A search of Croatian sources only gives passing mentions, like the local news from Šibenik when he visited Šibenik. Most of the time he's just referred to as the American ambassador, just someone filling a role. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Lightburst's argument here is to change the notability guide to include all ambassadors into Wikipedia. Do you know where the discussion is that concluded that ambassadors are not inherently notable? Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete ambassadors are functionaries not politicians. THere is not enough sourcing to pass GNG here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Discussion about ambassador notability., More discussion Lightburst (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking up those discussions. To summarise, a now-ancient discussion from 2009 in which Fram of all users makes an excellent point against, and an unclosed RfC from 2014 with all support !voters, but which didn't seem to have any substantive impact in the last five years. I still don't think Mr. Bradtke is notable on WP:GNG grounds, and I would not support a future RfC which declares all ambassadors inherently notable - to get another data point apart from this article, I did a random before search for the current ambassador for the last country I lived in and found zero secondary sources for him, even though the trade partnership between the two countries is fairly large. At least the people of Šibenik welcomed Mr. Bradtke once! SportingFlyer  T · C  04:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also found this discussion in 2015 relating to ambassadors and diplomats. Natg 19 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. No notability claim, no matter how important it may sound, ever exempts a person from having to have media coverage to support an article with. We're not looking for passing mentions of his existence; we're looking for coverage which is substantively about him, written by real journalists and not just press releases from the affiliated governments — even an actual president of the United States would not get a Wikipedia article if he somehow managed to hold the role without actually getting over WP:GNG on his media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * C'mon Bearcat! ...even an actual president of the United States would not get a Wikipedia article if he somehow managed to hold the role without actually getting over WP:GNG on his media coverage. hyperbole much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)
 * It's not hyperbole at all. I'm not saying it's likely that an American president would ever actually be in that situation — but it's absolutely still true that if one ever actually were, he would not be exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because he existed. Even a person who was actually the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ wouldn't get a Wikipedia article until media had covered him in that context, in enough depth and volume and range to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are getting carried away. Even the president's spouse is inherently notable. But Jesus? I am not sure... he may need the NY Times to write about him. Many people do not believe in God. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The president's spouse is "inherently" notable because she gets media coverage, and would also not be "inherently" notable if she somehow didn't. "Inherent" notability does not confer an exemption from having to have any media coverage; it is extended precisely because of the depth and range of media coverage that a person has, and is not granted to people (no matter how "important" their role may sound on the surface) who don't have media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I interpret inherent notability as meaning for an entire class of subjects, there is sufficient, substantive, independent sourcing. For professional athletes, there is a presumption that there exists independent coverage of each player in a professional game, for state legislators, there is a presumption that there exists independent coverage of each lawmaker who served in office. For many classes of subjects, including local elected officials, diplomats, or candidates, as a community we don't presume those sources exist. We know that the position of ambassador plays a different role across countries. We know that not every candidate receives coverage of their campaign (even for the US Presidency). Because we don't know that coverage exists within a subject classification, we want to know that a person meets WP:GNG so the article meets WP:5P2 (neutrally written and verifiable, citing authoritative sources). --Enos733 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the essay on diplomatic notability. The community consensus currently is that someone who serves/d as the "head of mission" is not "inherently" notable and must either pass WP:GNG or another subject specific guideline to merit an individual article. In this case, the sources are not present to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the article include an interview, s reprinted press release, a short article that only covers the views of the subject, and a mention in a Washington Post article. Because GNG is not met, the article should be deleted at this time. --Enos733 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Ambassadors are not necessarily notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2019 (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.