User talk:LibStar

Mahmood Munim

Hello, LibStar,

Your PROD tag for this article states that it was a declined PROD. Was it PROD'd under a different page title? If it was declined, I'm unsure why you PROD'd it again. Thank you for any further information you can provide about the history of this article. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

An error on my part. I have amended. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinical Information Access Portal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinical Information Access Portal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical Information Access Portal (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Just a FYI as you were involved in the previous AfD in 2011 and are the one of the two remaining active Wikipedians from that discussion. Tim (Talk) 02:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ambassadors are not politicians for being ambassadors

I saw someone say "not all ambassadors are politicians". This misses the point. The position of an ambassador is not a political position. It is not one of the positions covered under NPOL. Having seen many of the ambassador articles we have, they are often very poorly sourced. There might be better sources out there, but they are not on many of the articles. Ambassadors neither make laws nor do they govern, so they do not fall under the structural reasons of why we have NPOL. NPOL does however feel like it comes from an earlier time of Wikipedia, when people had not considered the worldwide implications of the policies they were making. We have since decided that no sportspeople should be notable for participation, that we do not want to presume notability for everyone who held the rank of general anywhere ever, because some times and places that was fairly trivial. We have realized that presuming every secondary school that people get a diploma from is notable is not a reasonable standard, because there is not good sourcing on all of them. I am thinking that with NPOL we may want to step away from presumed notability. Are all the names of everyone in every national legislature everywhere even known? Some national assemblies have had very, very little power. On the sub-national level this become even more clear. In the US before 2000 it is very hit and miss who in legislatures we have articles on, and often has nothing to do with their impact. It often reflects one editor having a local history obsession, and publishing lots of stuff largely based on primary source work, just look at what we have connected to Category:People from Dedham, Massachusetts. There are a lot of questions that seem to pop up a lot. 1. The New Hampshire house of representatives has more members than the US house of representatives. 2. Are all members of a governors cabinet covered by NPOL. 3. Are members of state wide elected boards over universities and other positions where there is some state board that covers some aspect of government notable. I understand the desire here, but we need to balance it with building articles on sources that are independent, secondary and intellectually reliable. However there has never been a determination that ambassadors are notable (I think even less so for acting ambassadors, who we also have lots of articles on). NPOL is if anything too broad at present, it clearly does not need to be broadened. It clearly does not include ambassadors at present and I do not believe that should change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think I got distrcted from my main point. An ambassador is not a politician by virtue of being an ambassador. Even if the person was a politician before they were an ambassador, or was afterward, the role of an ambassador is not a role that makes someone a politician. It is a government role, but lots of government roles do not confer notability. Not everyone who has a position in the government is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Thanks LibStar (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert I welcom you to make comments on AfDs concerning these. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  I an not currently allowed to comment on AfDs. It is a restriction that is 3 years old, so I may reach out soon to try and get it rescinded. However the Arbcom that imposed it is not an easy group to convince to lift restrictions, and since it was imposed as indefinite, I have to actively ask them to lift it. The last time I asked to have a restriction lifted I was nearly banned from editing for even asking to have it lifted, so I am very hesitant to make a request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  OK I didn't know about your restriction. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)