The result was delete. Fails GNG and the onus is on the keep voter to provide a consensus that Ambassadors are inherently notable (hint, there is no such consensus) Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The sources merely confirm she held roles. LibStar ( talk) 13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
if an ambassador is clear evidence of notability that would be listed in WP:BIO which it isn't, many occupations get inherent notability but ambassadors are not mentioned. Please point out a notability guideline which gives ambassadors inherent notability and I'll withdraw these AfD. Ambassador articles have been deleted which shows community consensus that ambassador are not inherently notable, now please demonstrate how this person actually meets WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
similarly I could argue all police sargents are notable. There is no guideline which says that but using your logic the fact it isn't stated gives it inherent notability. Community consensus can be wrong? sorry that's how WP works. Here's a list of some that have been deleted User:LibStar#Apparently_some_people_still_think_ambassadors_are_inherently_notable.3F. LibStar ( talk) 03:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
one person crusade? No one can unilaterally delete articles, we use consensus, not your laughable "community consensus can be wrong", if that was true WP wouldn't exist as it does today. LibStar ( talk) 09:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Per request from Montanabw the following Ambassadors, who I know of, have been deleted at AfD in the last month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Patrick Murphy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Lulashnyk and one is on the fence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Vashchuk, because he has some good coverage in host country press but even in that case there is a question because much if it relates to coverage of the position rather than him. Jbh Talk 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Changed !vote to Redirect. Jbh Talk 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
now you're trying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, yet you refuse to admit that. The 2 other !voters here I don't think I've interacted with before and have told you the same. LibStar ( talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In the four examples I gave all were from first world countries and three are male and all are white. What is the systemic bias in nominating those articles? The ones that have closed have been closed for lack of notability. That is a pretty strong indication of consensus of lack of inherent notability. As I said before there are many thousands of current and former heads of mission. Most are posted simply to literally "show the flag". In many cases, where an Ambassador is not a senior civil service post, they are prestige postings given to political favorites (Several US Ambassador are not even GS or FS, they are just people who the President owes a favor.) GNG, NPOL and ANYBIO exist to determine which are notable for their work and which are not. Jbh Talk 17:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"one person crusade". On this page three people have said Ambassadors have no notability. If you go the other recent AfDs you will see others who make the exact same comment. Whether these are
"lay opinions"or not really depends on the background of the editors, which you do not know nor, per Wikipedia policy does it make any difference. Finally, I have previously worked with none of these editors. I come to my opinions based solely on my knowledge and experience applied through my understanding of Wikipedia policy.
I suggest that possibly this has hit a nerve with you for some reason. Your last few comments have come, likely unintentionally, rather close to accusations of AfDing articles based on bias, bigotry and sexism. This does not, based on my earlier interactions with you, seem in character. Consensus is not going to change based on this AfD, particularly when only one person is arguing the counter-case. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on this issue—perhaps take it up on one of the discussion pages—but in any case let die a natural death here. Cheers. Jbh Talk 20:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
again referring to established guidelines for sportspeople is clearly another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You are fighting a losing battle here. I never said ambassadors should never have articles, indeed many, meet WP:BIO. But your whole premise that they are inherently notable has never been established, and you seem to think blindly this is the case. You now introduce a red herring of WP being white eurocentric biased as somehow a reason to establish inherent notability. LibStar ( talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect works as she was also ambassador to Cambodia, montanabw will just accuse you of being biased against 3rd world countries If we direct to ambassadors to Poland. LibStar ( talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Fails GNG and the onus is on the keep voter to provide a consensus that Ambassadors are inherently notable (hint, there is no such consensus) Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The sources merely confirm she held roles. LibStar ( talk) 13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
if an ambassador is clear evidence of notability that would be listed in WP:BIO which it isn't, many occupations get inherent notability but ambassadors are not mentioned. Please point out a notability guideline which gives ambassadors inherent notability and I'll withdraw these AfD. Ambassador articles have been deleted which shows community consensus that ambassador are not inherently notable, now please demonstrate how this person actually meets WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
similarly I could argue all police sargents are notable. There is no guideline which says that but using your logic the fact it isn't stated gives it inherent notability. Community consensus can be wrong? sorry that's how WP works. Here's a list of some that have been deleted User:LibStar#Apparently_some_people_still_think_ambassadors_are_inherently_notable.3F. LibStar ( talk) 03:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
one person crusade? No one can unilaterally delete articles, we use consensus, not your laughable "community consensus can be wrong", if that was true WP wouldn't exist as it does today. LibStar ( talk) 09:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Per request from Montanabw the following Ambassadors, who I know of, have been deleted at AfD in the last month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Patrick Murphy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Lulashnyk and one is on the fence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Vashchuk, because he has some good coverage in host country press but even in that case there is a question because much if it relates to coverage of the position rather than him. Jbh Talk 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Changed !vote to Redirect. Jbh Talk 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
now you're trying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, yet you refuse to admit that. The 2 other !voters here I don't think I've interacted with before and have told you the same. LibStar ( talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In the four examples I gave all were from first world countries and three are male and all are white. What is the systemic bias in nominating those articles? The ones that have closed have been closed for lack of notability. That is a pretty strong indication of consensus of lack of inherent notability. As I said before there are many thousands of current and former heads of mission. Most are posted simply to literally "show the flag". In many cases, where an Ambassador is not a senior civil service post, they are prestige postings given to political favorites (Several US Ambassador are not even GS or FS, they are just people who the President owes a favor.) GNG, NPOL and ANYBIO exist to determine which are notable for their work and which are not. Jbh Talk 17:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"one person crusade". On this page three people have said Ambassadors have no notability. If you go the other recent AfDs you will see others who make the exact same comment. Whether these are
"lay opinions"or not really depends on the background of the editors, which you do not know nor, per Wikipedia policy does it make any difference. Finally, I have previously worked with none of these editors. I come to my opinions based solely on my knowledge and experience applied through my understanding of Wikipedia policy.
I suggest that possibly this has hit a nerve with you for some reason. Your last few comments have come, likely unintentionally, rather close to accusations of AfDing articles based on bias, bigotry and sexism. This does not, based on my earlier interactions with you, seem in character. Consensus is not going to change based on this AfD, particularly when only one person is arguing the counter-case. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on this issue—perhaps take it up on one of the discussion pages—but in any case let die a natural death here. Cheers. Jbh Talk 20:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
again referring to established guidelines for sportspeople is clearly another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You are fighting a losing battle here. I never said ambassadors should never have articles, indeed many, meet WP:BIO. But your whole premise that they are inherently notable has never been established, and you seem to think blindly this is the case. You now introduce a red herring of WP being white eurocentric biased as somehow a reason to establish inherent notability. LibStar ( talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a redirect works as she was also ambassador to Cambodia, montanabw will just accuse you of being biased against 3rd world countries If we direct to ambassadors to Poland. LibStar ( talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)