Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Robert Parris

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 no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robert Parris

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Minnesota. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this posting, the article has been fleshed out. The subject received awards, wrote a book, and was a career-long member of the foreign service. I added more biographical content with sources to improve the article. The subject meets WP:NPOL and passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While standard diplomats might not be notable just because they are diplomats, heads of mission (ie: ambassadors) to other countries are (at least, in my opinion). I think more sources can definitely help there, but overall there is enough to meet WP:GNG and also WP:BIO.

Quick comment: that deprecated source in the article (#1) should probably be replaced with another reference. Losipov (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Well over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list or category that tells how many have been deleted? — Maile (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator is correct in stating that ambassadors are not ~~inherently~~ automatically notable nor do they pass WP:NPOL, contrary to the personal opinions of the two editors above. Additionally, the coverage in the article certainly does not provide WP:SIGCOV for the purposes of WP:GNG; besides the deprecated nndb source, the Clinton White House source is just a press release announcing his appointment (provides some background of his career, but doubtful of the significance considering it is a press release of an appointment), the Brookings Institute source (which is duplicated) is just his profile on the Brookings site, the WaPo source is just his name in a huge list of nominees, while the UMinn source is simply citing a publication he wrote for the bibliography. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the awards he has received appear to be bureaucratic awards, of which there are hundreds upon hundreds. Commendable? Absolutely; however, these types of awards likely do not fulfill WP:ANYBIO#1. Curbon7 (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors don't have any inherent notability. There's only one source in the article which is even secondary, and it simply names him in a list so is clearly not significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not WP:SIGCOV or they are primary. For example, this one is a 1 line mention. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect per WP:CHEAP to List of ambassadors of the United States to Turkey It looks like he authored a document titled U.S.-Soviet Bilateral Relationship. In 1986 The New York Times called him a "Soviet Specialist". We may have enough for WP:BASIC. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is the post of ambassador not a international [or] national [...] office? (WP:NPOL) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. That refers to political officeholders (legislators, judges, etc.), not diplomats. Curbon7 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 is correct. There is no free pass for ambassador articles. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to send a ping to @Edward-Woodrow in case they weren't following the conversation after their vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs c.e., as this man had a very substantive diplomatic career before the Clinton appointment See External links - I've added a State Dept official bio of Mark Robert Parris. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but if I see "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" one more time in an AFD (much less the 4 times it's stated here), I'm adding it to my list of Wikipedia's Most Overused Policy Cliches. Besides, being "not inherently notable" does not mean "not notable". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Liz, ambassadors aren't inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notability is based on what sources are available. Currently in the article, one is a database directory. One is a press release. One is his biography on Brookings (which claims it's from the "White House".) One is a mere listing - not even a sentence saying he was appointed - in the Washington Post. One is his state department biography. And one is a link to a paper he wrote. That's only six, but of the eight in the article, two are re-used. So the phrase is being said over and over again because the only way he could be notable with these sources is if ambassadors get some sort of free pass, which they don't. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, what you just said is what I'd like to see, an analysis of the souces for this article subject. Not just the throw-away line saying that ambassadors are not inherently notable which doesn't say anything about THIS article subject and the sources that have been found which could (or might not) provide evidence of notability. A general statement says nothing about this article that is being considered. That's my POV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I completely understand, but also consider as someone who participates in a lot of AfDs, shorthand can be very effective way of contributing to an obvious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ambassadors are inherently un-notable.^[sarcasm] Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. There might already be enough for WP:BASIC here, but to strengthen that argument, I'm quite confident that (offline) sources exist that cover this individual in detail. I also dug up some additional sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4 which are likely not SIGCOV, and some SIGCOV here. Reminder that WP:BASIC allows us to combine low-depth coverage to establish notability (to a certain extent). Looks like a strong case for keeping to me. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are significant coverage. The Miami one looks like a mere mention and the Dayton one covers him for two sentences. The ProQuest ones are also just one or two sentences. If he were a sportsperson, this would be "routine transactional coverage." SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it‘s enough if you consider the sources that have already been discovered and the low-depth provision of WP:BASIC. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 22:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC explicitly states that trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability and that is all that has been demonstrated so far. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I debated on whether to relist this or close it as a keep and I chose to relist it. We're on the keep side of things right now but it's really a weak keep in my opinion. Relisting so hopefully another week sparks a good round of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are we on the keep side of things when none of the keep !voters have shown any WP:GNG qualifying sources?!? SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An (imo convincing) NEXIST argument has also been made. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which offline sources might possibly cover him? US government sources should be well documented in online archives. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all ambassadors are notable, but it is quite likely that all U.S. ambassadors to Turkey are, given Turkey's longstanding importance in the region. BD2412 T 01:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. This biography needs to meet WP:BIO, concerns above from delete side is the lack of WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; it's just a common sense statement, such as stating that ambassadors of the permanament members of the UN Security Council to each other are highly likely to be notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United States to Turkey. None of the sources presented in this AfD satisfy WP:SIGCOV: all are passing mentions. This is unsurprising, given that this is the type of coverage that one can expect for most US Senate-appointed officials. Unfortunately, the suggestion that other sources might exist is WP:MUSTBESOURCES, unless evidence to the contrary emerges: US ambassadorships to Turkey are not the highest sought-after ambassadorships. I also don't think the source presented as SIGCOV by Actualcpscm fulfills SIGCOV: the article from Palm Beach Daily News is about an event the subject of this article moderated. Therefore, I have to agree with SportingFlyer, who in my view correctly points out that trivial coverage has only been presented so far, as I too have been unable to locate further online or offline sources that show or might show that this ambassador has received significant coverage, meaning that WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, I've also looked into Turkish-American relations literature to see if Parris went beyond being namechecked, but it never seems to amount to SIGCOV. For example, [1] and [2] are passing mentions. Pilaz (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2023 (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.