Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel B. Thomsen


 * 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. –MuZemike 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Samuel B. Thomsen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks to be an unremarkable career-diplomat who made to ambassador of a tiny country. Not many hits on internet, but outside the main stream that is difficult. Notable enough? Night of the Big Wind talk  22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses
Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. When I created Sam's article last month, I had just come across his name listed as our first United States Ambassador to the Marshall Islands. He, and several of the other persons listed, had their names redlinked, implying that whoever had created the article was inviting editors to supply articles for the various Ambassadors. I had known Sam briefly a long time ago and accepted that invitation, although I couldn't find much about him on the internet either. Apparently he wasn't as controversial as two of his classmates at Foreign Service Institute, Curtis Kamman and John Negroponte.

Taking a look at the list of ambassadors to this "tiny country", I see that two of the seven others have articles. Is either Greta N. Morris or Clyde Bishop any more "notable" than Sam Thomsen? Maybe. Maybe not.

So I guess a question we need to ask ourselves is whether being a U. S. Ambassador to anywhere is enough to confer notability per se. Or, should we pick and choose among ambassadors and only select those who did something exceptional, got in trouble, or perhaps were assassinated? Or should we only consider ambassadors to countries we consider notable to be noteworthy enough to have an article?

My own belief is that, by being appointed U. S. Ambassador to a country, a person has achieved notability, even if we can't write a lengthy article about him or her. So, I hereby cast my ballot to retain Sam's article. I urge other editors to provide articles about his successors in that position, plus additional information about Sam himself. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The difficult part is that the "value" of an embassy in a certain country can change over time. Once the US-embassy in the Netherlands was very important and diplomatic heavy weights were appointed there. According to G.W. Bush the importance had declined enough to appoint one of his financial backers. Some posts for ambassadors are always (= in the present situation) notable, like those in China, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan. Other post have far less importance, like the posts in Andorra, Monaco, San Marino. Others have a "value" far bigger than the country should indicate, like Luxembourg and the Vatican. To my opinion an ambassador should be weight on the importance of his/her post in general during the stay in office, any diplomatic anomalies (s)he get involved in, career prior and after the stay in office (not necessarely as a diplomat) and personal antics. In fact should every ambassador be weight on his own merits and not on the title of the job. Night of the Big Wind  talk  20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect- Any verifiable ambassador from Foo to NotFoo at least rates inclusion at the corresponding list and evaluation; if the case cannot be made for a stand alone article, merge or merge & redirect should be the default option, and not a future subject for AfD; all information included for other entries at United States Ambassador to the Marshall Islands is already included there, so merge is not required unless content is evaluated for inclusion there. Dru of Id (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I still say Retain as is! I'm not sure what would be involved in the process of Redirecting, but it seems simple enough to just give anybody who has served as an Ambassador for one of our English-speaking countries an article of his or her own in this English-language Wikipedia. I am much more in favor of completeness than of debating about, and picking and choosing which Ambassadors are, or aren't, notable. I will not be offended if somebody creates an article for an Ambassador whom I consider less notable than Sam Thomsen, nor will I suggest the deletion of that page. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I translate it correctly, you say that he should be kept because he is an American Ambassador? Night of the Big Wind  talk  23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, and what about the Amabassadors from, let us say, China, Germany, Saudi Arabia and France? Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. I'm only suggesting that Ambassadors from our English-speaking lands be included automatically, should somebody wish to write their articles. Other wikis are not my concern. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You did misunderstand me. Do you think that ambassador from non-English speaking like China, Germany, Saudi Arabia and France do not deserve the same treatment on en-wp as American ambassadors? Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This being the English Language Wikipedia means the content in written in English. It does not mean that we favour English language topics over others. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As a politician holding an office that is international in scope. The coverage is scarce to be sure, and I'm not adverse to a merge to United States Ambassador to the Marshall Islands.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Whpq! I don't know how well a merge would work in the case of an ambassador who had served in several countries. Which one of those countries' ambassador lists would we merge him into? And in cases of lists of ambassadors to countries where embassies have existed for many years, wouldn't those lists become unwieldy with little biographical sections for 10 or 20 ambassadors? These may not be insurmountable problems, but as a web designer I worry about them.

As for your other comments and those of Night of the Big Wind above, I can only say that the English language Wikipedia tends to have articles which are of interest primarily to people in English-speaking countries. One can find many detailed articles about tiny villages in Yorkshire or Indiana or New South Wales, but fewer articles about obscure places in other lands. Articles about our own obscure places (and people) never make it to the French or Arabic or Japanese Wikipedias, and vice versa.

So our English Wikipedia will naturally tend to have many more articles about ambassadors from our counties than about ambassadors from other countries. However, I don't go around looking for articles to delete. If somebody takes the time to write an article about an official from some other country and publishes it in the English Wikipedia, I'm not going to try to discourage him from doing so. I am all for inclusivity, and against exclusivity. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - My primary recommendation is to keep this article, with a note that I would not oppose an outcome of merging. As far as I can tell, and as mentioned in the article Thomsen has been an ambassador of only the Marshall Islands so there is no issue of which article to merge to.  His work in other countries was as a foreign service officer, and not as ambassador.  If he did serve as ambassador to more than one country, then a merge should not even be on the table. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From one Dutchman in disguise to the other DutchmanInDisguise:
 * - A diplomat who served as ambassador on several different posts is almost always notable.
 * - In my opinion every ambassador, regardless of country or language, is worth seperate inclusion if (s)he passes WP:GNG or else in an overview.
 * - I consider this discussion as very useful...
 * Night of the Big Wind talk  21:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - even if not all ambassadors are notable, he would still be a historical figure as "advisor to the commanding general of the U.S. Marines in Vietnam".... Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2011 (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.