Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galsworthy (diplomat)

:{{la|John Galsworthy (diplomat)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|John Galsworthy (diplomat)}})

Appears to fail WP:DIPLOMAT. All I can find in terms of google hits and google books are mentions where he is listed on lists of diplomats. There are literally hundreds of references to John Galsworthy, the noble prize winner, who is a different person. Those references make it difficult to find information specifically about John Edgar Galsworthy (the subject of this article), so there may be reliable sources to document notability at the level suggested for WP:DIPLOMAT, but I am unable to find them. If those sources are turned up by someone, then I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. But if they are not, it has been marked for 3 months as not citing any references, and it is likely time to be deleted without the successful discovery of such sources to document notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

: speedy keep. I am extremely concerned that User:ConcernedVancouverite is conducting a childish campaign of intimidation against me. What have I don? I've only written genuine articles about genuinely notable people'. He knows nothing about this subject; yet he wades making a mess of things, of that I am not surprised. User:ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for vandalism and being disruptive. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. References? Try using your brain and looking at Who's Who. Notability? Knighthood indicates notability. Flying Fische (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

:: Comment - I will ignore your personal attacks as you are clearly just very passionate about the topic, but I do encourage you to re-read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. In terms of the content of your statement, almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood, so in this case it does not appear to confer notability considering the guidance for all diplomats worldwide as stated here WP:DIPLOMAT. I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources (as Who's Who is not a particularly wonderful source to establish notability, as it has a bias to include all Baronetage, regardless of how minor their achievements, and misses many more notable folks). As such, as I mentioned if you would be kind enough to provide some reliable sources to establish notability at the WP:DIPLOMAT level I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Until that point, I will leave it, so that either you or others will do proper sourcing on the article (or barring that delete the article). Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

::: I have "personally attacked" nobody (please don't lie and suggest that I have), indeed I and my perfectly good contributions are constantly under attack and intimidation for no apparent reason from people like you. Now FYI, Who's Who is a perfectly good source to indicate both notability and provide references. I'm sorry if you don't agree with it because it's deemed "socially conservative" (tbh WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be a product of this liberal idealism as well). It is a vast resource of information on the British establishment that contains such useful information. Yes, it misses some people outside of the establishment, but that's OK because Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral so already has articles on all premiership footballers and others who have achieved in other ways. The fact is that Wikipedia is not paper, so the inclusion of those in Who's Who and Debrett's, perfectly cited, is not going to adversely impact any other parts of the encyclopedia. If anything, Wikipedia needs more articles on the establishment, not less. It is quite clear that the editors of those publications consider them to be notable; remember they do this professionally and ultimately for commercial purposes. It is not in their interest to include biographies of people who aren't notable. If they were making money they would revise their editorial practices. Obituary writers for the major broadsheets, are also going to include such people, even if they don't mean such arbitrary standards as "WP:DIPLOMAT" actually appears to fall short. Again, we need more of this not less; now in an ideal world and encycleopedia would be written "top down" - the most important people first, followed by those slightly less important, and so on until the borderline cases are reached. Editors are probably further down that triangle with sportsmen, singers than with diplomats. So diplomats are more notable than many of the others included here otherwise without question. Flying Fische (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. An ambassador and knight. Ridiculous nomination. Incidentally, the nominator's statement that "almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood" is utter rubbish. Only senior ambassadors are usually knighted towards the end of long and distinguished careers. In any case, we as a rule keep articles on anyone who has been knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Ambassadors still require satisfaction of WP:DIPLOMAT, which there have been no reliable sources provided to support. I have searched and have not turned them up. If he is notable, then please do provide the citations. Regarding knighting, you may want to make some edits to KCMG then which currently states, "People are appointed to the Order rather than awarded it. British Ambassadors to foreign nations are regularly appointed as KCMGs or CMGs." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note the part "...or CMGs". A CMG is not a knighthood; a KCMG is. Mid-ranking ambassadors are often appointed CMG, but to be appointed KCMG one has to be pretty senior. Somebody who is notable enough to have been knighted is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. Even most people appointed CMG would be considered notable. Note this from higher up the notability guideline you have just quoted: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." A knighthood most definitely counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". The general notability guideline is thus satisfied. In addition, notability guidelines are not proscriptive, as you appear to think they are: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Just because someone does not meet a narrow set of criteria (very narrow in the case of WP:DIPLOMAT) does not disqualify them from being the subject of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:DIPLOMAT. The notability standards of entities outside Wikipedia are wholly irrelevant. WP has its own standards of notability, and those are the only ones that matter here. Not every ambassador, diplomat, or knight is notable by WP standards. So the argument that Galsworthy should be kept merely because he was an ambassador, diplomat, and knight is completely false. Qworty (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• With respect, rubbish. If anyone has a distinguished enough career to be knighted then he definitely has a distinguished enough career for an article on Wikipedia. In any case, whether he fails WP:DIPLOMAT or not is irrelevant, since people who have been knighted clearly pass WP:ANYBIO. If you want more, as well as being ambassador to Mexico, a fairly important diplomatic post, Galsworthy was also one of the two British observers at the free elections in El Salvador in 1982 and co-authored the subsequent Government White Paper. No, maybe he wasn't a well-known figure, but he was a senior and successful diplomat, and we don't just cover people the general public are likely to have heard of. We provide information on significant figures whoever they may be. Government officials are often not well-known, but they are frequently significant. And a knighthood is generally a fairly good indicator that they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. If a knighthood isn't "a well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, then I don't know what is. Maybe it would have been better if the subject had received an AVN award instead, as they seem to be accepted as confirmation of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. I tend to agree that he has received a significant award and is thus notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V because the article is still unsourced and nobody has bothered to reliably source it during the AfD. If sourced, keep per the apparently notable knighthoods.  Sandstein  05:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

: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.