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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there is no shortage of good sources to comply with WP:GNG, but most appear to be in French. I have found and added a few. Clearly a significant international career with a long way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonraker (talk • contribs)
• Comment Let's look at some of the added sources.
• This one is a 1 line mention in an article about 4 ambassadors.
• This one is just a 1 line mention and the article is not about the subject Evans and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
• This one is again a 1 line mention again and the article is not about the subject Evans and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
• This one is just a primary source.
• This one is another 1 line mention in a list of names and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.

LibStar (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- ambassadors are inherently notable as they are the representatives of their countries in the host country. They serve as the eyes and ears of their country. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are not inherently notable. Many have been deleted and there is no notability guideline granting them automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Note-worthy in the outside world, not notable in Wikipedia" unless properly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Search throws up nothing and as nom correctly points out, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just because many ambassador articles were deleted in the past means they were valid deletions. I have seen articles saved from deletion where the content amounts to little more than 19 year old Michel Henderson plays goalie for the Strikers FC. AND Henderson is considered notable yet a former ambassador with 30+ years of diplomacy is not. As far as I am concerned, some people have their priorities upside down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs)

Ya got to give sources, doesn't matter what the subject is. She is notable, but we need sources that can be used for wikipedia's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having served as Director of European Operations and African Outreach, besides her positions as ambassador. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NPOL does not apply to being a director of a government agency. There is no automatic notability conferred from being an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe she meets WP:NPOL as an Ambassador: "highest rank of diplomatic representative sent by one national government to another". She held the title "Her Excellency" (Son Excellence) Excellency "Generally people addressed as Excellency are heads of state, heads of government, governors, ambassadors, Roman Catholic bishops, high-ranking ecclesiastics and others holding equivalent rank, such as heads of international organizations.". Ambassadors are appointed by the Head of State and would act on behalf of HM Government Piecesofuk (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are implying ambassadors are inherently notable which is clearly not the case as many ambassador articles have been deleted for failing WP:BIO. The best way to argue for keep is to demonstrate the existence of in depth sources. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe ambassadors are notable as I showed above. It would be helpful if the claim "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" is backed up by reliable sources. If this claim comes from WP:OUTCOMES then it should be noted that "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." In-depth coverage is not a necessity per WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Piecesofuk (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is backed by community consensus in the deletion of over 100 ambassador articles. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Political_figures_not_elected_to_public_office which specifically states Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. There is no notability guideline which grants ambassadors a free pass to inherent notability. Nice try though. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned above re WP:OUTCOMES: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

  Additional evidence of notability, the Times page I referenced above: "The following were received in audience by The Queen and kissed hands upon their appointment as Her Majesty’s Ambassadors: Mr Simon Boyden (the Islamic Republic of Mauritania) and Ms Catherine Evans (the Republic of Mali)." : To kiss hands is a constitutional term used in the United Kingdom to refer to the formal installation of the prime minister or other Crown-appointed government ministers to their office.

  And Order of Preference, for example United States order of precedence and UK Table of Precedence Piecesofuk (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe ambassadors are inherently notable, will you be asking for a deletion review of all deleted ambassador articles? And that every admin that has closed an ambassador deletion discussion as delete is wrong? LibStar (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AON. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe some ambassadors are notable if they meet WP:BIO, since you always vote keep for ambassadors it's more like WP:AON for you. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't always vote keep, I have only done it for female ambassadors that mostly have other merits besides their diplomatic careers. You can compare that with the sheer number of nominations opened this month. Considering the comments on other nominations and on your talk page, per Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence, you should reconsider the frequency these nominations are being started. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You should reconsider the frequency of recycling the argument that it meets WP:NPOL for leading a government agency (when WP:NPOL clearly doesn't apply). LibStar (talk) 23:08, 30 March 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.