Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles John Hodgson

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 Redirect to John Courtney (diplomat) as there seems to be consensus to have an article on the person while the redirect might be useful and certainly does no harm. Tikiwont (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles John Hodgson

Charles John Hodgson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has essentially no information other than this persons job. Are all ambassadors in all countries considered notably? Note that it seems like the creator of this article is making articles for all ambassadors from Zimbabwe. AvruchTalk 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The question of notability for ambassadors has been raised at WP:BIO (talk page). My argument is that ambassadors who have done nothing else (i.e. been involved in some major diplomatic achievement or imbroglio) are not automatically notable, particularly (As in this case) if they were just barely appointed. AvruchTalk 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it would be gracious to give reasonable time for the creating editor (and/or other editors) to expand and justify the article. It was only created 3 hours ago!
My suggestion would be to wait one month and then delete it if it has not expanded to a more encyclopaedic size.Alice.S 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not a lot of info, but notable. Jose João (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Question: You are the editor that created this article. Do you intend to expand it soon? Alice.S 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
He's been made an ambassador just this month. It is incumbent upon the creator of an article to demonstrate notability, at the very least beginning with an assertion of notability. "Charles John Hodgson" gets 6 hits on google. That... is not very many. Even I get more. AvruchTalk 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The lack of hits may just be because User:Perspicacite alias Jose João (presumably relying on Zimbabwean sources) may have got the Gentleman's name slightly wrong. If it's the career diplomat that I once had the pleasure of meeting in Singapore at a diplomatic reception, then you might get more results with searching for Mr Charles John Hodgson COURTNEY. If I remember right, he used to do the Hong Kong and Macau stuff for the Ozzies when he was in this neck of the woods...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs)
"Charles John Hodgson" gets SIX hits on Google, while "Charles John Hodgson Courtney" gets ONE HIT. And that's in English, not Zimbabwean. I would think that an ambassador would get more presence than that. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Google's great but not infallible. Leaving aside the professional diplomat's natural reticence and desire to keep a low profile, he does pop up in the Ozzie Hansard on occasion. Here's a recent reference: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j10362.pdf (He also gave evidence to the same committee 2 years ago as I recall) Alice.S 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: And expand. I am sure there is much to include into this article, being about a person holding a very notable position. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, ambassadors are not covered by WP:BIO but as the local representative of an entire other country they probably should be. As a new ambassador, naturally his period of notability has just begun. --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Ambassadors hold an international office and thus qualify under WP:BIO. Furthermore, it is a matter of correcting the systematic bias inherent in Wikipedia against non-western figures.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the Australian Ambassador to Zimbabwe is notable enough (two notable countries, one in a severe crisis); but since his name is John Courtney this article should probably be binned. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC) But I see that you already know this (how did I miss that before commenting?)
  • Delete, ambassadors are not automatically notable, and the one reference given says very little about this person. If no sources are given indicating notability, this bio should be deleted. The "international office" line in WP:BIO only relates to politicians, i.e. (in most countries) elected persons, where the election for the position will have generated interest (and thus coverage in reliable independent sources). Ambassadors often get by without any mention at all apart from "X is the new ambassador" and a few years laters "X is replaced by Y, the new ambassador". This is clearly insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be the work of a moment for someone to include this source (as I have suggested on the article's talk page; I can't do it because Perspicacite has ownership issues): http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/zw.html
I agree with your assertion with regard to politicians; in most Commonwealth countries, ambassadors are not (officially) political appointments. However, given the usual legal status of an ambassador as plenipotentiary for the state he represents, there should be a very strong presumption of notability (which can always be refuted in the rare cases that an ambassador's position only lasts a few days {perhaps notable in itself? - grin} or it is impossible to garner insufficient biographical detail {not the case here}.
I would propose re-naming the article to John Courtney and placing a note on the current re-direct page which currently refers to an (less notable?) ornithologist. Alice.S 10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that link is just a bio of an employee posted by his employer. This is not an indicator of notability or an independent source at all (it is of course a reliable source, but that's not sufficient). Most companies have similar bios of their key people on their website, but that does not make these people more or less notable. Fram (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Even when "his employer" is the Australian Government? In this context, the reliable source is independent of the article topic since the topic is the employee and not the employer and that employer is sufficiently large for it to be clear that the employee is not able to unduly pressurize the employer into including biased or inaccurate information as a source. As to notability, very few of the "source's" employees have biographical information listed like this, so it does constitute confirmation of notability - at least in the eyes of the Australian Government. Alice.S 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, even then. There are listed for this department alone at least 100 people[1]. And it is not because the source is big, important, or reliable that it is independent. I am not claiming that the info is biased or incorrect, I am claiming that an employer posting info on an employee can never be seen as an independent source establishing notability. Fram (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't go to the core of your argument, but there are only 81 diplomats listed with plenipotentiary powers to act as head of state abroad. An order of magnitude less than all the parliamentarians in Australia who are indubitably and automatically "notable" because they were elected. Alice.S 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Ambassadors are easily as notable as MPs; the fact that they have lower public profiles (and hence give fewer google hits) is irrelevant: they represent not just constituencies but whole countries. --Paularblaster 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict with previous)
  • To quote John Courtney himself: "I can't comment further. Diplomacy has to be conducted between governments and not through news media." This does make referncing harder; it doesn't make ambassadors any less notable. --Paularblaster 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to John Courtney, which will involve juggling with the redirect to John Edgar Courtney (who seems no less notable than the ambassador). Then flesh it out with information from the various sources you get by Googling for "'john courtney' Zimbabwe" etc, e.g. "John Courtney is currently the Australian ambassador to Zimbabwe. He was appointed to the post in November 2007, (source) replacing Jonathan Sheppard, who had been ambassador since July 2004." That doubles the size of the article, and it only took me a minute or so; I imagine that Courtney will be in the news eventually, perhaps when Robert Mugabe kicks him out. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, but move to John Courtney, per totality of argumentation above. Alice.S 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, while we were discussing pinhead dancing, you seem to have been very busy and created a brand new viable article at another page, Paularblaster. Because of this, and the fact that the originator of the article under discussion has chosen not to expand it, in the 4 days since he created it or answer my question above as to his intentions, I have deleted my vote immediately above and made a replacement vote below. Please note that I am unable to make the necessary and obvious redirect myself since that will probably provoke the article's originator into yet another attempt to have me banned.
I also congratulate you on creating the necessary disambiguation page at John_Courtney
Given that the AFD is still open, redirecting the article now would be ill-timed and probably exacerbative, at best. The closing admin, if he or she determines that the totality of the discussion indicates that a redirect is best, will redirect it him/herself. -- ArglebargleIV 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You really need to stop complaining. Yes, I would oppose you unilaterally redirecting the article. This is an AFD. You dont just decide to ignore all votes and close the AFD to get what you want... or maybe you do, but that wont fly here. Try not to troll quite so much. Jose João 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Jose, I don't see where she is unilaterally redirecting the article, nor where she is closing the AFD. She's changed her !vote here for the article to be redirected. The history of the Charles John Hodgson article shows she hasn't done a move, unilaterally or not. The history of this AFD shows she hasn't tried to close it, either. -- ArglebargleIV 21:47, 3 December 2007 (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.