Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy William Blake


 * 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. Michig (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Roy William Blake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

This afd is similar to 2 Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs articles sent to Afd yesterday (Jostein Helge Bernhardsen, Olav Berstad), and 2 Category:Asian diplomat stubs (Miyoko Akashi, Khalnazar Agakhanov) sent today, that may be non-notable. AFAIK Blake, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

The intention of these Afds is to see whether diplomat biographies should be subject to the same rigorous conditions for establishing notability as other articles on writers, artists, scientists, politicians, sportsmen etc., or whether they are ‘automatically notable’ irrespective of their personal achievements.  Klein zach  12:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. No inherent or presumed notability, but passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage of Blake and his family in reliable sources over an extended period of time: 1954,1954,1954,1956,1957,1958,1958,1960,1964,1964,1966. I also found some references to his war service, which might be covered in more depth in off-line sources. It also looks like he may have written for Saturday Night, but I can't be sure it's the same person. Pburka (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure those sources establish notability, per WP:NOTNEWS. We really need, at least, stories that are about the subject of the article. Stories that quote him or mention him in passing are not enough. Only the tiny appointment notice is actually about him, and I don't think that counts. Three of the stories are quaintly anachronistic pieces about his wife. Unless we count her as notable, we certainly can't count him Formerip (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment... I have to agree with Former IP here. The sources that Pburka gives are not really enough to establish notability.  What we want are sources that actually discuss him in some depth, preferably in the context of discussing what he did as a diplomat. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The first four links are articles specifically about Blake or his wife. The fifth is about a report he published in "the current issue of Foreign Trade". The sixth and seventh are about an interview with Blake. The next is about a trade mission he led. The ninth is a human interest story about Blake's time in Jamaica, and the tenth is an announcement of his appointment to Germany. The eleventh is just a quote, but I think the first ten are far more than passing references. Pburka (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep on account of adequate sources or, failing that, merge with List of Canadian diplomats. There is no sense in losing this information and no policy requiring it. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject surely passes the GNG, but I would argue that the lead diplomats (chiefs of mission, which is to say, in modern usage, ambassadors) representing major nations, especially to other major nations, on a more than temporary basis, are notable by position alone, in the same way as are members of national legislatures. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think we should create a policy distinguishing "major nations" from all other nations in determining whether an ambassador meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I go back to the position that ambassadors (especially today) do not possess independent policy-making authority and primarily serve as "spokespersons" for their government. Lists of ambassadors to a particular country is the best way to serve the mission of Wikipedia, unless the subjects independently meet WP:GNG or the additional criteria described in WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the criteria in WP:DIPLOMAT, as they stand today, are counter-productive. The bar they set is, for most intents and purposes, higher than WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. A member of, say, the Utah House of Representatives is notable by virtue of position alone, but the U.S. Ambassador to Italy is not? There's something wrong with this picture. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because it passes the WP:GNG per the sources found by Pburka. It is a little bizarre, but it does seem like there was a good bit of local press coverage of his activities as a diplomat in Australia. Ray  Talk 15:53, 21 April 2013 (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.