Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janvier Kanyamashure

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 Keep. — Scientizzle 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Janvier Kanyamashure

Janvier Kanyamashure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Ambassadors are not considered notable by default, and this ambassador receives only two Google hits. I would consider the subject non-notable. SaveThePoint (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep ambassadors are notable by default. The fact that some user decided to change the policy against consensus doesnt change consensus. This has already been dealt with on other pages. Jose João (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion, and even if it were, this guy is notable by any meaningful definition of the word --Ryan Delaney talk 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Article is a stub, too early to assess other issues, and is notable per all. Thinboy00 @164, i.e. 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I cannot find a policy that exempts ambassadors from WP:N. Indeed, the google hits are only two, and I could only access one of them concerning a meeting with the Vice-President of Burundi. That is not enough to meet notability. In the absence of sources, this article also fails WP:V.LonelyBeacon talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - The new spelling turns up a lot more sources, which given the propensity for French, may need more time to glean sources. I am still not sure this subject meets WP:N, but I think it needs to be given a chance. I would recommend that, as soon as this AfD is closed, rename the article properly, or at least rename it, and make sure there is a redirect from the current title. This is per suggestions from User:Alice et. al. below. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that the printed sources are likely to be African and in the French language, I think that this discussion should be adjourned sine die to allow sources to be found. It does not surprise me that internet sources are not to be found, but they are likely to exist in official paperwork and diplomatic circulars. It does Wikipedia no harm to be slow to judgement and there should be a presumption of innocent of the Wikipedian article crime of non-notability. However, I would caution editors against presuming that the gentleman's name has been correctly spelled. Can someone get hold of a relevant copy of Igazeti ya Leta ya Republika y'u Rwanda (the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda)? Alice✉ 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "In the absence of sources"? This article is 100% sourced. AllAfrica is a pretty mainstream source... Jose João (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per LonelyBeacon; I, too, can't find anything that says that ambassadors are automatically notable. The lone Google hits are trivial in nature, and the overall lack of sources has me believing that this person is indeed not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark On Wikipedia:Notability (people) there is actually a guideline noting that ambassadors are not necessarily notable by virtue of their being ambassadors. I probably should have mentioned this in my listing above. SaveThePoint (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That particular guideline should be read as meaning that very few ambassadors (as opposed to diplomats in general) indeed will fail the notability test. Please note that the test is whether they appear in an authoritative, independent source (ie that their existence has been noted) - not that they are important or significant. I have two questions: Is the gentleman a plenipotentiary with power to represent and bind his head of state in negotiations and can two authoritative, independent sources be found for some minimalist biographical details? I also think we need to be aware of "western systemic bias". Alice✉ 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That was not the intention of the guideline the way it was written prior to your modifications today. The former version was based on consensus in discussion, and changes that make the guideline more complicated and proscriptive should be proposed in a new discussion. Avruchtalk 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thomas.macmillan. I agree with your point about the systemic bias, and it did cross my mind. However, there still must be some way to verify notability. If this person is truly important in international relations, then there must be a record of it somewhere? I agree that google is hardly the end all and be all .... it is a quick check. But then there must be some print record of this somewhere? Otherwise, I am seeing endless stubs of <<insert name here>> is the ambassador from <<insert nation>> to <<insert other nation>>. Can we even be sure that this person is still the ambassador? I would understand that establishing notability may be at issue, but then I would still say delete based on WP:V in the absence of anything but a single source (possibly out of date). LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC),
As of December 26, he is still the ambassador: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It may have been modified today, but it was not written today. Avruchtalk 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete More information should be found on this individual to determine notability, as it stands it does not meet the notability guideline for inclusion. I understand the issue of systemic bias, but I think in international relations-related articles there is something else at play - i.e. diplomats of diplomatically powerful nations (e.g. Western nations, China, Japan, etc.) are more notable and important than diplomats between small relatively less internationally influential nations. Avruchtalk 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentAvruch, I could not disagree with you more. Wikipedia is not just for representatives of "diplomatically powerful" states, but for people of all states (or of no state, for that matter). Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Great Lakes region of Africa can understand that Rwanda-Burundi relations (and thus their ambassadors) are incredibly notable and important. Please keep your bias against "influential nations" out of this discussion. The article is sourced and represents a person in a notable position. --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there, like, a grand list of ambassadors where we could include this information? I don't see how it helps Wikipedia to delete this information entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Avruch, this is not an encyclopedia of "diplomatically powerful nations". This is a general encyclopedia. If we instituted your rather outlandish view on notability, then systematic bias would grow worse than ever - and it's already pretty bad. Jose João makes a good point - the name is likely misspelled. I'm going to go look for Rwandan or Burundian Wikipedians who might be able to help. Picaroon (t) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if what I wrote is being misunderstood. I'm relating notability in the case of an international representative to the scale of that individuals actual influence/power, i.e. the French ambassador to the UN sits on the Security Council (which adds to notability) while the ambassador from Djibouti typically does not. The Djibouti ambassador may well be notable, but if we're talking about the fact of being an ambassador making someone notable de facto then I think the issue of the varying notability of ambassadors from different nations is relevant. Avruchtalk 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - While do not for one moment doubt that relations between Burundi and Rwanda are important, I just visited Foreign relations of Burundi and Foreign relations of Rwanda, and there is no mention of relations between the nations being important. There is no mention of this ambassador. I would think if there were objective notability, then there would be at least a mention? LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have found reference[2] to a "Javier K. Litse", also spelled "Javier",[3] who was at one point the "Lead Economist" of the African Development Bank. He seems to be from a Francophone country, though I don't know which one. Any chance this is the same person? Picaroon (t) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[4] This seems to show that Janvier K Litse is from Cameroon. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. The man's name is actually Janvier Kanyamashuli [5] (search that name and see how many hits you get). Everyking (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, yes. I'm glad you followed the hint I left earlier here. (P gets very excited and accusatory if I dare to correct him directly, but he is getting a history for this kind of thing.) Alice✉ 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't follow any hints; I've just done enough research for Wikipedia to know that if you get so few hits for a person like that, you're probably doing something wrong in your search (in this case, since Rwanda would be expected to take its relations with Burundi especially seriously, I would expect the person not to be a nobody—and as it turns out, he previously held another notable position). Since I knew the first name was spelled correctly, I just based a search around the first name and other key words relating to his position. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
She's just trying to pick a fight with me. I find it's best to ignore her petty insults. Jose João (talk) 05:27, 29 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.