Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susumu Shibata

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. We don't currently consider ambassadors to be inherently notable. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susumu Shibata[edit]

Susumu Shibata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. coverage merely indicates he held the post. also there is a chef with the same name too popping up in coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like he is no longer the ambassador to Angola, Ryōzō Myōi is (see here). Shibata is no longer listed as one of Japan's ambassadors: here is the MOFA list. Michitaro (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not while the RFC is ongoing, please. This is going to end up being another no consensus close, between those who think that people without significant coverage are not notable, and those who think ambassadors are inherently notable. RayTalk 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
disagree, inherent notability has not been established. article must pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- ambassadors are inherently notable. Compare the limited scope of our article about Lucius Foote who was the first American diplomat in Korea from 1883 to 1885. Like Foote, Shibata is one of a series of diplomats in a small country. --Ansei (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ambassadors are not inherently notable, there is no guideline which says that. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading through a bunch of news articles in translation, I find no significant coverage of the subject - these are all trivial mentions in the context of "the Japanese embassy announces" or "the president received," etc, thus failing WP:BIO. We can (and do) find more press mentions of senators' press secretaries. RayTalk 19:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the lack of in-depth coverage other than just passing routine mentions, I'm not convinced this passes the WP:GNG notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The previous AFD was an abberation and is now sitting at DRV. The guideline WP:DIPLOMAT maked it clear that the subject should have adequate sourcing so the policy based position here is deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ambassadors ought to be considered as intrinsically notable as its the highest rank of their profession. We haven't always done so, but we should, and we certainly should at least when its the diplomat of a major nation like Japan. The coverage problem is the result of cultural bias, since he was the ambassador to Angola, and that's where the coverage needs to be looked for. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a misnomer to say its the peak of the profession. There are loads of British Ambassadors who are only middle-ranking in smaller posts and not even senior civil service. Its ridiculous to argue that a G7 or G6 is inherantly notable. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ambassadors are not inherently notable, there is no guideline which says this, and this is simply inviting criteria for the purposes of a keep !vote. here is one recent example of an ambassador article being deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Richardson (diplomat). LibStar (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DGG. this fits with all of our other intrinsic notability criteria, and realistically, the chance that he wasn't extensively covered in actions as the ambassador is vanishingly small, its just a matter of finding the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources[edit]

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per DGG, to whose excellent points I would also add that even if we decided that there was not enough verifiable content in existence for a standalone article on a particular ambassador, we would still merely merge and redirect the individual to a list for that ambassadorship, so per WP:ATD this shouldn't have come here at all. postdlf (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please can you explain how a relatively junior official in a small post can be considered inherently notable when they are well short of the pinnacle of their profession? Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the "pinnacle" to you? Just whatever few ambassadorial posts you subjectively consider "important"? We are determining that it's the head of any ambassadorial post. Would you also exclude backbenchers as not at the "pinnacle"? postdlf (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susumu_Shibata&oldid=1138809200"