- 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Jennifer M. Adams
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jennifer M. Adams ( | 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)
WP:BLP of a diplomat, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to
primary source content
self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat ( talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, England, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her. SportingFlyer T· C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing. They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background). I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability. She fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with above, sourcing is not good enough to meet WP:BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk) 23:20, 19 May 2024 (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.
- 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Jennifer M. Adams
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jennifer M. Adams ( | 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)
WP:BLP of a diplomat, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to
primary source content
self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat ( talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, England, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her. SportingFlyer T· C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing. They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background). I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability. She fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with above, sourcing is not good enough to meet WP:BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk) 23:20, 19 May 2024 (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.