Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Adam (diplomat)

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. Daniel (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Adam (diplomat)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors, so that is not a valid keep argument. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources, and ~~notable per WP:DIPLOMAT as~~ he had a significant role in the 1973 Chilean coup-d'etat.[1][2] [3][4][5][6] Not surprisingly, it's difficult to find newspaper articles about him from the 1970s, but one should presume that these exist. He also appears to have edited a number of publications on diplomatic relations. (When searching, be sure not to confuse him with David J. Adams, ~~who~~which was at the center of a diplomatic dispute in the late 19th century.) Soon we should add ambassadors to WP:OUTCOMES. Pburka (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some ambassador articles have been deleted, and a discussion of the proposal to grant them inherent notability has gone nowhere. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I've !voted to delete some, but I think the majority are kept. Pburka (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still that wouldn't grant inherent notability. WP:BIO is still the standard for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there is no clear consensus that all diplomats are inherently notable, this is the man that rescued almost a dozen people during one of history's bloodiest coups. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:BIO as mentioned above. I'd definitely object to automatic notability for ambassadors, there can be some pretty insignificant ones, but this guy did something notable, so that doesn't matter here. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.