Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Andrigo

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. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Andrigo

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. unreferenced for other 6 years. ambassadors are not inherently notable. only coverage I found is routine merely confirming his role in one line. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors are, in my opinion, generally notable as very senior officials of their country and their country's chief representative in other countries. Most of those who have been brought to Afd have been kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are not inherently notable and still need significant in depth coverage which this one sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and I disagree on this score, as you know. I believe they are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherent" notability exists on Wikipedia only insofar as the inherent sourceability of that topic does — for instance, presidents of the United States are "inherently" notable, but only in the sense that it's absolutely impossible for a person to hold that role at all without garnering more than enough verifiable coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article regardless of whether the position confers "inherent" notability or not. In other words, the only way a topic can be "inherently" notable is if the class of topic is so solidly and indisputably sourceable that the "inherently" part is a moot point. Likewise, diplomats are not "inherently" notable just for being diplomats, if their articles are not properly sourced as such — no class of topic ever gets to claim "inherent" notability as an exemption from Wikipedia's requirements around verifiability in reliable sources, and diplomats are not a class of topic in which all people who have ever been diplomats are always sourceable enough to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A closing admin is far more likely to pay attention if you can demonstrate if WP:BIO or WP:DIPLOMAT is demonstrated as being met through sources provided. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, this is an Afd, in which opinions are valid. Secondly, as you very well know, most Afds on ambassadors have been closed as keep, despite your attempts to the contrary. Thirdly, as far as I'm concerned, given their high status, keeping articles on ambassadors, certainly those of major countries, is purely a matter of common sense and is a complete no-brainer. Fourthly, please stop citing WP:DIPLOMAT as if such a thing actually existed! It's merely a redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (people) (which actually says bugger all about ambassadors apart from they're not covered by WP:POLITICIAN), just as WP:BIO is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia:Notability (people) did contain a statement specifically about the notability of diplomats until earlier this year, until it was removed pending the outcome of an as-yet-unresolved discussion on the talk page about whether it should be revised. And even that discussion offers nothing even approaching the suburbs of a consensus that all ambassadors are "inherently" notable — the closest thing to a consensus there is that we should grant a presumption of notability, which is still not actually the same thing as "inherence", to a country's primary representative at the United Nations. The nominator may not have been aware of that change (I certainly wasn't), but it is absolutely not the case that the notability guidelines for people have never contained any content about diplomats, nor that there's any emerging consensus that ambassadors are automatically notable enough to trump the WP:RS rule. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't say there was any such consensus. I merely said most recent AfDs have been closed as keep, which is entirely true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to the original post in this thread, it's a misconception that ambassadors are necessarily "very senior officials". Australian ambassadors to small or relatively unimportant posts are typically middle-management level officers who'd lead a team of only 6-8 people (or less) during rotations to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's headquarters in Canberra. I believe that this is standard practice for most countries (if you look at the career path of a career diplomat in an important post they've normally spent time as the ambassador to at least one less important post when they were at a much lower rank). Most Australian ambassadors are at the Executive Level 2 or lower Senior Executive Service levels, which aren't considered particularly senior positions. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ – See the citations I've added just now; he's had some bits of significant coverage over the years. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are the sources in-depth about him as a subject or do they contain one line mentions merely confirming his role? LibStar (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to verify four of the five through the web databases that I have access to via the Toronto Public Library (Hill Times being the only outlier at this point), and all four of them are one-line mentions acknowledging his existence and verifying the ambassadorial postings, but failing to be about him in a substantial enough way to get him past WP:GNG on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bearcat for your work on verification. I noticed you haven't actually formally !voted yet. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill Times article confirms his postings as Deputy High Commission to New Delhi, and as Ambassador to the Republic of Latvia and Estonia, nothing significant beyond that. Would it be worth merging any content to Canada–Latvia relations (currently an article with no citations)? Ambassador of Canada to Latvia seems to be his most significant posting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any merge because you could also argue he could be merged to Canada-Estonia relations. But the fact no one can find any evidence of a notable contribution to bilateral relations means this article should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize there are some good reasons why the consensus is against me, so I am striking my "weak keep" recommendation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a list of the people who've held this position would be a valid Wikipedia contribution (as well as a potential redirect target); even if we can't properly source a standalone biographical article about every individual person who held it, there's still some value in Wikipedia maintaining some sort of information about the position. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to provide in-depth coverage of this person. As none of the diplomatic postings he's held are particularly high profile there seems to be no reason to assume that such coverage would exist. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to keep what is really a very weak stub. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearcat's comment above and his review of the sources added. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per point 4 of wp: politician, ambassadors aren't presumably notable. Personally, I'd probably say that ambassadors to major countries probably are generally notable (e.g. Canada-US, Canada-Mexico, etc.), but being the Canadian ambassador to the Baltic countries doesn't seem like a particularly important position. Additionally, based on the article titles, most of the sources don't seem like they would provide significant coverage specifically on Andrigo. Orser67 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just for the record, WP:POLITICIAN #4 isn't meant to be a blanket statement about the automatic non-notability of all diplomats as a class; it's just meant to specify that POLITICIAN isn't the standard by which a diplomat's notability or lack thereof is judged. The same umbrella guideline actually formerly contained a separate section for judging the notability of diplomats, although it's currently stripped from the article pending talk page discussion to establish consensus for a revision. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of sourcing just isn't actually there to support an independent standalone article here — and Wikipedia's standard has always been that diplomats are not all automatically notable just for being diplomats, if the sourcing isn't there. If somebody's willing to take the time to track the information down, I would fully support a list of people who've held this position, but if all we can confirm about an individual ambassador in reliable sources is the mere fact that he was named to the position, then we don't need a separate standalone bio. Delete, or redirect to a non-biographical list of the ambassadors if somebody can track down enough information to start one. (Also note that since he's the only entry in Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Latvia, Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Lithuania and Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Estonia, all three of those will also have to be deleted as empty categories.) Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 6 April 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.