Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:10, 3 July 2014

30 June 2014

History of the Jews in Nepal

History of the Jews in Nepal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagree with judgment of closing admin. I queried closing admin on their talk page as to the policy based rationale, but the admin flat out refused to provided any indication as to the reasoning serving as the basis or the close as a "Clear policy-based "keep"". User_talk:DangerousPanda#Your_close_of_AFD_discussion_on_History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. There was an An/I thread filed in relation to the deletion discussion here, and the OP of that thread has opened an RfC at the article Talk page here. As was pointed out by several editors during the deletion discussion, there is nothing of historical note in the article. One editor that didn't participate in the deletion discussion made the same observation toward the bottom of the AN/I thread as well. There was a proposal to merge made by a couple of editors which may be a viable alternative--to deleting the article--for some of the material. The OP of the An/I thread added a substantial amount of irrelevant or fringe material to the article during the deletion discussion, but has since removed the most contentious material. After he removed that material, however, there is absolutely no basis for an "Ancient history" section in the article, for example, which now simply states that there is no ancient history. Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) -->

• Support Close as Keep . I agree with decision of closing admin. What's done is done. No need to re-open this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's been re-opened absolutely bloody everywhere else. Those extraneous discussions should all be closed. DRV is the correct venue to dispute an AfD outcome, and Ubikwit is entirely within his rights to begin a deletion review, so this is the only place the discussion should be re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. My sense is the closing admin did a responsible job, and that the subject has pretty much exhausted itself. My current take is there is a problem with the article title, specifically the word history in the title, I think it should be renamed to Judaism in Nepal or possibly Jews in Nepal, but that the content is worthwhile and should be kept, since it meets GNG, is encyclopedic, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• ... and I find this utterly bizarre. I've been a frequent participant at DRV for five years and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

  If we review the debate without examining the article the debate was theoretically considering, then DangerousPanda's close is right in the bullseye. But when I look at the article, I can't connect it with what people said in the debate. I mean, the "keep" recommendations just don't make any sense to me. Neither the Jewish nation nor the Jewish religion have any meaningful history in Nepal and it's not anti-semitic to say so. I don't think your problem is with DangerousPanda's close. I think the debate, rather than the close, was what was defective.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that consensus was not based on a vote count, but on assessment of policy-based arguments, in this case, WP:NOTABILITY. If, as you have also found and as many participants in the deletion discussion pointed out, there is no content in the article related to the title, then I was assuming that the consensus of policy based opinions put forth in the discussion would lead to a judgment of consensus such that the article would be deemed to fail to meet the notability criteria, and the discussion closed as "delete", or possibly merge, but not all of the material would fit into the proposed merge destination article. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, this is rather par for the course for this topic area; article squabbles from the Israel/Palestine/Islam/Judaism rarely make it to DRV, as one side usually marshals (pun unintended) the forces to come bloc vote along strictly ideological lines. Nearly every incident of stone-throwing, axe-wielding, bulldozer-driving, etc...has an article in the project. Even the incidents that are truly notable get bloated to 100k of prose in a matter of days. The alphabet soup of WP:* acronyms is no match. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the DRV nomination and Keep article as is, because the closing admin followed policy, while the nominator in this case, barely 24 hours later after he lost his nomination at the AfD , and has been warned for violating WP:DONOTDISRUPT , now rushes to this DRV based merely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:LIKE. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" , that added to his general unstoppable violations of WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL should make him eligible for a quick block here and now. The nominator is simply continuing his WP:WAR over content that has nothing to do with the correct procedures and policies followed by the closing admin. Nominator would be well-advised to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, 13:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reverse the keep decision: I agree with S Marshall above. Consensus does not merely mean numerical vote. The views of editors whose opinions are unrelated to the actual content of the article should be discounted. It is patently absurd to have an article about the history of Jews in a country that has never had a Jewish community. I have suggested a number of compromises that would preserve potentially notable material contained in this article, and all these have been rejected by a group of editors that seem blind to the total absurdity of this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Close as Keep The closing administrator was rather clear in addressing the strength of the arguments. The AfD was turned into a battleground and now the effort to fight a needless and disruptive battle shifts to DRV. The arguments made in support of the article at AfD directly addressed notability and substantial efforts were made to improve the article in the face of persistent disruptive efforts to remove those improvements. The arguments being made here for overturning the closing administrator's decision simply repeat the same arguments rejected at AfD and go nowhere to making the case that consensus was ignored. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• How embarrassing for Misplaced Pages to have such an sub-standard article. I didn't read it until now and played no part in the previous discussion. Where is the argument for notability? Is it notable because no Jewish community ever existed there? Because none of the 10 tribes were supposed to have moved there? Perhaps it is notable because some Israeli mountain climber was there? Chabad has some emissaries there, like they have everywhere else, big deal. I'm an inclusionist by nature and often vote to keep marginal articles, but this one is essentially devoid of content. Zero 14:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. The discussion had a rough consensus to "Keep". The discussion could not have been closed as "delete".

S Marshall's comment of 12:39, 1 July 2014 is interesting. I agree, it appears that the AfD discussion was faulty, but not the close. I suggest, as often in DRV protests against a Keep closure, to follow the advice at Misplaced Pages:Renominating for deletion.

Sure enough, the nominator began the discussion with a weak nomination. "The article is purported to be about history, but the article describes no history, with the earliest date referred to being 1986, with absolutely no historical context or relevance." is an argument for improving the article. The sentence fails to assert that the topic has no history, or even no sourceable history. The first nomination sentence does not assert that the topic has no events prior to 1986. It is just a collection of loose statements. It could equally be a rationale for a RM proposal to rename the article to Jews in Nepal. The second sentence, "The article does not meet the notability criteria" appears to miss the point that deletion considers the merit of the topic, not the current state of the article.

Is there a non-trivial history of Jews in Nepal? Is there sourcing from reliable sources? Can the nominators issues be solved with a rename? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the critique of the wording of my proposal, but I didn't want to appear to presume to know whether there was anything that would be turned up to establish notability. That, however, was not the case.

The questions you pose were all substantially answered during the course of the deletion discussion, and the answer is no, there is no non-trivial history of Jews in Nepal. Ravpapa did some research that pretty much established conclusively that there was no "there" there, and proposed ways to salvage some of the content in the article, namely the material about Chabad and the material about diplomatic relations.

A couple of editors on the "keep" side made overzealous efforts to "improve" the article during the course of the deletion discussion to prove that the topic had merit, but their efforts were an exercise in futility; moreover, fringe material and irrelevant material was added to the article, detracting from the focus on the deletion discussion.

Your suggestion of Jews in Nepal might pass notability, but outside of Chabad and the embassy, there are only Jewish tourists, apparently. Jewish tourism in Nepal? I don't know, but it is clear that there is no notable history.

Finally, the content that was added to the article during the deletion discussion, starting with the current opening sentence, redefines history

The history of the Jews in Nepal describes the activity of people from Israel as well as Jewish people who live in and visit the nation of Nepal, including tourism, cultural ties, and religious experiences.

and attempts to support that the article addresses something that fits that new definition. What that first sentence attempts to call "history" is not. Whether the closing admin should have considered a rename or merge, which were both suggested in the deletion discussion, is beyond the scope of my procedural knowledge. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• For the benefit of others here for the first time, I just found the guideline WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which includes this text

  Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

  --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Close To do otherwise requires far stronger policy based arguments than here presented. No sign that the closer ignored policy based arguments is given, and thus the close holds. Collect (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Well within discretion based on discussion. If the article is still in flux wait for a consensus stable version and then renominate for afd based on changed article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete or re-open AfD: The "keep" votes in the original AfD are policy-based, well-argued -- and appear to be totally disconnected from the actual content of the article. If History of the Jews in Nepal had the contents implied by the "keep" votes and the "close" reasoning, I'd be in favor of keeping it, but it actually reads like a list of every tenuous link between Judaism and Nepal the authors could dig up. --Carnildo (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close no one has shown any evidence that the close was wrong. Those who complain about the quality of the article should well understand that the present quality or lack thereof of an article is NOT NOT NOT a basis on which to delete an article of we could dump 80% of our content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carlossuarez46: Quality is not the issue here, it is a logical fallacy to assert that the material in the article relates to history. None of the keep arguments that attempted to do so could back that up with RS, though some fringe and otherwise extraneous material was introduced during the AfD. Both Racpapa and User:Drmies did some research into the topic that fairly conclusively determined there was nothing there. Meanwhile, it was acknowledged that there was notable material that could be integrated into other articles, but no name was presented that would facilitate keeping the article in its present form that would meet the notability criteria.

How do votes such as these, for example relate to policy relevant to an AfD? It seems to me that they should have been discounted because they are based solely on opinion

Keep - I would err on the side of assuming notability, as this article comes from a link in the almost-entirely-filled-out Asia in topic|History of the Jews in template. The topic seems pretty notable, and if the article could do with some (or a lot of) expansion, that's not a matter for AfD. ∴ ZX95 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep and link to WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per Bearian and numerous references. One comment, I think the article is not only about the history of Jews in Nepal, but more about relations between the two countries, as well as about Israelis/Jews in Nepal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Had such votes been discounted, the likely outcome should have been to move some of the material to one or two different articles, as there were editors on both the keep and delete sides that favored that option. The fact that the content of the article did not correspond to the name of the article makes it clear that there was a logical fallacy involved in any keep vote attempting to maintain that the article was notable as an article on history and should be kept as such.

In the meantime, this is a learning process for me, as I have not participated in a discussion here before and only a couple of AfD's. If another AfD is the best way forward after people have had more time to try and fill out the article, then I would have preferred a close of "no consensus", for example. I don't see how the keep votes merited a "keep" close in light of the "rough consensus" guideline.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Weak endorse but suggesting a speedy new AfD discussion, per sound User:S Marshall, Tarc and Carnildo's arguments. Cavarrone 07:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note: As this DRV commenced, User Pharos (talk · contribs) has taken on the task of improving the article and adding even more solid content that even the nominator has verified and endorsed . IZAK (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was able to find a source and reworded the comment added by Pharos to reflect what is in the source, but as I mentioned in the edit summary, I do not find the fact that a scholar visited a country and wrote a study on it to substantiate the notability as "history" of "the Jews in Nepal".

For what it's worth, it should also be pointed out, perhaps, that the source I found makes no mention of the fact that Levi was Jewish.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:20, 15:13 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit: Could you please tell us, as briefly as possible, what you would consider to be Jewish history in Nepal or any country or place for that matter? Since no one knows what your minimal "requirements" are in that regard. Is it something grandiose? Is it that Jews should be born in that place? Is it a major catastrophe? A migration? It is just impossible to get a handle on your thinking, or better yet what "principles" or rules" you are going by, that most people are just not accepting. Please stop yelling about what it is "not" and tell us what you think Jewish history "is"! Thanks and regards, IZAK (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, briefly, this is not about my version of anything, it is about history per se. The second paragraph of the lead of that article states

History can also refer to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine and analyse a sequence of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause and effect that determine them.

It has already been pointed out by Ravpapa ad Drmies that there are no Nepali Jews--and there never have been--and there has never been a community of diaspora Jews in Nepal, so there is no "history". That leaves only the present.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit: First of all we don't know what went on the last 5,000+ years in the area of Nepal. Secondly, there have been Jews in Nepal at least since 1960, why does that not count? Thirdly, you are evading my question, I asked you what you would consider to be JEWISH history (hint, it is about Jews in a country, no matter whether they are born there or not), it is not the same as general history, and that I think is the central problem here, we are arguing apples and oranges, can we agree on that? Let's try to be brief (I know we both like to be wordy, so I am trying my best, I assure you.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can't argue with the close given the debate, but wow, that article, and the topic, just really aren't encyclopedic. There is no meaningful history here if the article (and the comments here and at the AfD) are to be believed. But I can see the closer feeling that deletion would have been a supervote. But given the article and the strong sense it can't be meaningfully improved, I'm going to go with overturn to delete. This is basically an article that says "X in Y" and has as content "there is no X in Y". A merge would be a better solution (Jews in SE Asia? I'm not sure Nepal is considered to be in SE Asia though) if a solid merge target can be found. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete: echoing reasoning of Hobit. And as for user IZAK's (unsigned at 12:17 above) assertion that we cannot know what went on in Nepal over the last 5,000 years, there is therefore no history involved for a Misplaced Pages article, since there can be no accurate sources and without sources it is OR. Hence no history. I agree that this article was essentially badly named. Fylbecatulous talk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Close as Keep. I find that we have an article on Contemporary history which is speaking about a timeframe closely connected to the present. And I find that the BBC refers to "recent history" in reference to events and developments only decades old. (Note topics under "Recent History" at the linked-to BBC website.) Our article clearly states the limitations of the history under consideration, and assertions in the article seem well-supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the Contemporary history article to which you linked and then try explicating the article under discussion in terms of contemporary history. What is in the article under discussion do you find to be of historical note along the lines of the events described in the "contemporary history" article?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Far be it from me to disagree with a fellow admin, but there is no history of the Jews in that country, and no one in the AfD had any arguments to prove otherwise. The presence of one organization does not history make. Jews haven't lived there or built there or anything else until quite recently. I suggested a better course but its pretty well-known that Wikipedians would rather write a bunch of crap with stuff pulled from Google than a real article with journal articles and books as a source. The suggestion that all this stuff is "history" proves our history, and that we should keep this "because something may have happened in the last 5000 years" is so ignorant I don't have words for it. But I suppose that editor will vote to keep Drmies in Nepal since they also don't know anything about that.
• Endorse This is a mere argument over title: if people really insist on interpreting "history" in the narrow sense, it could be changed to Jew in Nepal. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a google search on "Jews in Nepal". I won't repeat what I mentioned above, but if you peruse the Afd, you'll see mention of a JSTORE search conducted by one of the participants.

It seems to me that if the "history" aspect is acknowledged to be a logical fallacy, there is nothing else on the thematic level that holds the collection of material in the article together, and it begins to look like a blog.

I've also found this interesting essay WP:MASK, which states

The use of numerous, often unnecessary references, known as bombardment, can give a good impression and make an article appear notable. In many cases, these could be sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong. But the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability.

Without general notability, the article sounds promotional in relation to the activities of Chabad and perhaps those of the organization converting tribal people from India because it is illegal in India to do so. WP:NOTPROMOTION states

Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Misplaced Pages to do so.

Since there are dedicated articles on Chabad and the other organization (can't remember the name), the material belongs there, not in a general article called "Jews...". They are not representative of "Jews" as a whole, and there are almost no other Jews in Nepal (except tourists).--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, repeating the same slogans does not make them "true" so please quit talking for the Jewish people, since there is no such thing as the "'Jews' as a whole" except in your mind because Jews come in all varieties, in all situations and cannot be judged the way you are judging them from your obviously very narrow POV. You have yet to prove that you know anything about the principles of Jewish history. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin and anyone still to !Vote: Please be aware that even since the commencement of this DRV, the article is being constantly upgraded with additional information with more WP:V WP:RS particularly by User Pharos (talk · contribs) and myself. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, with respect to the History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#Security_issues section, for example.

Other than that, the material being added is tangential at best, consisting of isolated one-off stories about individuals. The latest relates to an eleventh century merchant based in Tunisia who reportedly sold a spice said to originate in Nepal--but even that is not certain. None of this marginalia is about history of "Jews in Nepal". I also looked at the source here on "Jewish history, and you are misrepresenting that by using history as a hook for your coatrack article about any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You know what Ubikwit, by now it's pretty obvious absolutely nothing will ever make you happy, you have tried an AfD, complaining at ANI, and now at this DRV, you just want the Jews out, out, out of Nepal, and you figure if you just repeat yourself long enough you will get your way, no ands ifs or buts, and there is no reasoning with such an irrational approach. Furthermore, since you are such a self-claimed "expert" about the History of Nepal why don't you go and fix that key main article first because since 2011 (three long years) it's been tagged with a huge {{Multiple issues}} template that requests and notes: "cleanup=February 2011; refimprove=June 2011; confusing=January 2011" and as they say, "charity begins at home" and once you can show your bona fides over there maybe you will have some credibility here. But right now, all it seems like is that you are just being stubborn, not acknowledging the constant improvements to the article being made daily and just tiresome obstructionism that is getting to be a pain. IZAK (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Brummell

Paul Brummell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. Four editors opined to keep against three to delete. Brummell has been the ambassador of a major country (the United Kingdom) to four other postings (successively Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan & Kyrgyzstan, Barbados & Eastern Caribbean, and Romania). I recognise that ambassadors are not considered inherently notable, although I and others consider they should be, but that does not mean they cannot be notable. Brummell has an entry in Who's Who. Maybe the sourcing isn't great, but I believe it is sufficient for an article to exist about him. As we all know, Afd is not about a simple count of keep and delete votes, but in this instance, given the voting, this should at least have been closed as no consensus and not delete. Instead the closer appears to have completely discounted any keep opinions and gone with his own opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• endorse only one of the keep !voters actually attempted to find sources. The other keep !voters did not bother to establish sources nor point to any guideline that gives ambassadors inherent notability. if there was such a guideline maybe this DRV would have merit. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - as 3 keepers were of the "it is inherently notable" bent, which is not at all true. The consensus of those making cogent arguments was quite clear. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really. The keep arguments were actually of a "these positions are senior enough to make one notable" bent. The delete arguments were of a "these positions are not senior enough to make one notable" bent. Not really much in either apart from opinion. I would argue that keeping an article on a senior government official is common sense and benefits the project. Why is that not a cogent, policy-based argument, given that WP:IAR (a policy) says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • so we should ignore notability criteria in this case? WP:IAR is not intended to give a free pass to non-inherently notable items. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It's only your opinion that they're non-inherently notable. Others disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes really. People just can't up and declare that all ambassadors are inherently notable, vote keep, and expect anyone to take them seriously. Make a proposal at the appropriate page, e.g. WP:POLITICIAN, and proceed from there. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • So tell me what you think afd is actually for? Is it not to achieve consensus over things like this? If not, why don't we just give admins the power to delete articles at will if they don't meet set-in-stone criteria? Why is there not a policy that states: "All articles on ambassadors can be deleted out of hand because there is no policy that says they're inherently notable"? Answer: because afd is about expressing an opinion and forming a consensus! No argument in an afd that makes a sensible point (e.g. that certain people are senior enough to be seen as inherently notable and articles on them benefit Misplaced Pages) should be dismissed out of hand as you and the closer have done, especially when it has been expressed by several different editors. This is very far from being WP:ILIKEIT and snide assertions that they should not be taken seriously are not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • XfDs are for determining consensus, yes, but editors' input has to be based on established project policy and guidelines, otherwise it'd be just a vote. Many people can (and do) show up to deletion discussions about YouTube personalities, where they then vote on "he/she gets lots of YouTube views" criteria, which is expressly disallowed by our notability guidelines. If 10 fanboys say "keep it it has a million hits!" and 2 vote "delete since the subject fails the WP:GNG", the article will be deleted. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm sure I addressed that above. They're ILIKEIT arguments. As I specifically said, these are not. They're logical arguments. Just as we have a consensus that all members of national and sub-national legislatures should be kept at WP:POLITICIAN and a de facto consensus that all general officers should be kept at WP:SOLDIER, it is possible to obtain a consensus on other categories of senior individuals. I believe that is what we should have here. And I am clearly not alone. Afd is a perfectly reasonable place to put forward such arguments. Dismissing them out of hand and claiming they should not be taken seriously is not productive. Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are fluid, not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

the fact some ambassador articles have been deleted demonstrates no inherent notability, if they are kept they would have met WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN, saying repeatedly they are inherently notable in the absence of a guideline convinces no closing admin, nor does it turn it into inherently notable , as Tarc says if you're so convinced set up a proposal to establish a notability guideline.LibStar (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

not really, it indicate no more than our inconsistency. Some articles of every possible type have been deleted if not adequately defended. This is not an inclusionist argument particularly: occasional articles of no particular merit have been kept despite the deletion of most almost identical articles with equivalent sourcing. I think our error is 10% in either direction, which means there is a 1 in 4 odds that any particular afd decision is wrong by our own principles. (this apparently dismal record is actually an improvement: when I came here, it was 20% improper deletions, not 10%.) DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

regardless, if something is deleted when it clearly meets a notability criterion, it would be overturned in a deletion review, or even recreated at a later date. In this case there is no inherent notability in ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How can they meet WP:POLITICIAN when most of them are not and never have been politicians? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Some have been politicians, otherwise they would meet WP:BIO if they were kept. In any case, keep !voters are strongly advised to produce sources to establish notability, not say inherent notability when there is clearly no inherent notability. LibStar (talk)

Some have been. Most, however, are career diplomats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have always considered Ambassadors, at least of major powers, to be intrinsically notable. The rank is the top of their profession,and we normally regard the top rank of any profession notable. The position s at least equal in prestige and dignity than a member of a national legislature, and we regard not just all members of national legislatures notable, but all members of state legislatures. Nobody who know WP expects it to be consistent, we we should aim at some degree of equivalence between major professions. I regard this as one element of the general bias of WPedians, who don't tend to realize the importance of the serious parts of the real world. The consensus has not supported me in this so far , but as we evolve from a society of people primarily interested in various hobbies, I expect that it will. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• What the debate should have focused on is the fact that he has a Who's Who entry and a profile on .gov.uk, and those are pretty bloody clear evidence that we ought to have an article on this person. Instead, editors chose to spend a week wrangling about WP:POLITICIAN, which is a symptom of how specific notability guidelines have come to dominate the AfD process in recent years. On the basis of SNGs, we routinely keep biographies of bit part Star Trek actors and pseudonymous porn performers, but we've got delete the one on an actual ambassador, and I think this is stupid. The way that we're told, apparently in all seriousness, that we need to get consensus to amend WP:POLITICIAN before we can overturn the result of that discussion is even more so. Relist for a better debate so that we can reach a proper conclusion that's about the sources rather than wikilawyering about SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well said. Some editors would clearly like to turn Misplaced Pages into a monolithic bureaucracy where everything is governed by virtually immutable "rules". That is not the project I joined, it is not the project I want, and I do not believe it is the project that the world needs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Despite the AFD's closing rationale, so far as I know the only policy on notability is that there is no such policy. Instead we are invited to consider the guidelines and then decide whether an article is justified. If a coherent argument is put forward for why someone is notable even though the notability criteria have not been met (or vice versa) this should be given full weight. In this AFD the nomination and all the delete !votes were coherently based on the notability guidelines. My reading of the keep !votes is that they argued that the person should be notable according to appropriate guidelines. To me there is no sign that anyone was confused into thinking the guidelines had been met and so they were required (reluctantly) to !vote keep. So, I see no reason for discounting any of the !votes and on this basis there was no consensus. The guidelines are based on our opinions and not the other way round. Thincat (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn for reasons given above by Necrothesp, DGG, S Marshall and Thincat. Stanning (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I want to be clear that I did not say "overturn". I said "relist". I think the discussion rather than the closer was at fault.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Apologies, so you did. (But I agree totally with what you said.) Stanning (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn. The finding of a rough consensus to "delete", on the basis of the discussion, is a stretch too far. AfD is free to reject the guidelines; the guidelines are support to document practice, not prescribe practice, and the guidelines can be defective. I think the closer crossed the WP:Supervote line, and that it would have been far better for him to have !voted. I haven't seen the article, but I see that the subject has numerous weak sources, and that he is certainly not a private individual. In the AfD, some editors assert a notion of inherent notability. This is a dubious concept in the theory of WP:N, but then the theory of WP:N is dubious. I feel that a lot more discussion is needed, and that in the meantime, it is better to be inclusive, where the subject are not private individuals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, discussion showed a slight consensus on keeping the article based not just on the subject's figure and position but also on a number of sources. Necrothesp provided the Who's who source, Pburka cited several sources, Flaming Ferrari voted keep on the basis of the sources (I believe that there are sufficient third party sources to justify notability for this individual). While a GNG level of coverage was probably not established, I think this is however a good case of WP:BASIC, where the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial but multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. We have no guideline considering ambassadors inherently notable, but we also have no "policy" (as stated in the close) that prescribe articles about ambassadors should be judged without exception only on GNG ground and have to be deleted in spite of sources and consensus. Cavarrone 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to Keep - sufficient sources were presented to make a decent argument for WP:N, and the headcount was decidedly that way. The delete position make only one attempt to address the sources, and ignored most, weakening it significantly. WilyD 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

John Michael Owen Snodgrass

John Michael Owen Snodgrass (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. Four editors opined to keep against three to delete. Snodgrass was the ambassador of a major country (the United Kingdom) to two other countries (successively Zaire and Bulgaria). I recognise that ambassadors are not considered inherently notable, although I and others consider they should be, but that does not mean they cannot be notable. However, the most salient factor is that Snodgrass was appointed Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG). This clearly meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1, in that is a "well-known and significant award or honor". We have held a number of times that Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) is a notable enough honour to meet this criterion. See, for instance:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diana Babar
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vernon Stewart Laurie
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Gordon Matthew
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/C. K. Rhodes
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frank Ongley Darvall

CMG is in fact an equal grade to CBE in a more senior order (these grades, incidentally, are directly below the grade of knighthood - they are not lightly given). It would therefore be ridiculous to suggest that a CBE made an individual notable, but a CMG did not. However, the closing admin stated that "policy based arguments are to delete". This is clearly not true. When I raised this on his talkpage, he stated that he considered the argument that all recipients of a CMG were notable was "just ridiculous". This is also clearly not true. As we all know, Afd is not about a simple count of keep and delete votes, but in this instance the discussion clearly should have been closed as keep given the precedent to keep those with significant British honours and given the fact that the subject, while substantial sourcing may not yet have been found, has an entry in Who Was Who and held a senior government position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• As above. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. In my view the best close would have been no consensus although I think keep would just about have been within discretion. The actual close was inappropriate for the same reasons as above but in this case there was a greater preponderance of keep !votes. As an aside: WP:Verifiability is an important policy. If after unverifiable material has been removed from an article nothing substantial is left, the article may properly be deleted however important the individual (provided no redirect or merge is available). Thincat (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, but since his entry in Who Was Who confirms all the salient details this is not relevant in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes. Since I probably seem to be taking a soft line on notability I wanted to be clear I take a hard line on verifiability. It is good that for living people the verifiability policy is very widely accepted. Thincat (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn for reasons given above by Necrothesp, DGG and Thincat. The CMG is a minor point, though a point in favour of keep; the main points towards keep are the same as stated for Paul Brummell above. Stanning (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closing admin seems to have supervoted rather than interpret consensus. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
• Overturn. WP:Supervote. I think the information is suitable for Misplaced Pages, but that the dearth of secondary source content means that a stand alone article was not justified. Why was there no consideration of merging with other similar diplomats with similarly thin coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closer would have done better to vote rather than closing the discussion. Here several sources were provided and ignored in the close, an argument about ANYBIO was raised and ignored in the close, the last of the delete votes comes from a SPA account (born and dead the same day) and I assume also this fact was also ignored. There was no consensus for deletion and some good arguments for keeping the article were raised, this close does not reflect the discussion. Cavarrone 06:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus - sources are weak, but not so weak as to make it farcical to be okay with them, heads are divided. Marginal policy, marginal head => no consensus. (Additionally, invoking BLP in a wholly non-negative article about a dead guy is extremely dodgy). WilyD 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)