- 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nicholas Jarrold ( | 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. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 20:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Croatia, and Latvia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete routine not indepth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep The coverage here so far is a little thin, but there are also hits at Google Books and Jstor, as we would expect with a British ambassador. The GNG is not of course anything to do with importance, so in theory I agree that an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics in practice it would be pretty hard for one to achieve such obscurity. On the question of what is "routine coverage" for an ambassador, that is always going to be at a higher level than for less notable roles in life. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker ( talk) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources help meet GNG? LibStar ( talk) 01:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment there are no JSTOR hits. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I find him named in various documents that list government appointments, and he gets some nice acknowledgements in introductions to books, but nothing that gives more than his name. If there is more it may well be in news sources from the countries he served in, such as Croatia. I have no access to that information. Lamona ( talk) 19:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:52, 5 March 2023 (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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nicholas Jarrold ( | 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. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 20:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Croatia, and Latvia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete routine not indepth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep The coverage here so far is a little thin, but there are also hits at Google Books and Jstor, as we would expect with a British ambassador. The GNG is not of course anything to do with importance, so in theory I agree that an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics in practice it would be pretty hard for one to achieve such obscurity. On the question of what is "routine coverage" for an ambassador, that is always going to be at a higher level than for less notable roles in life. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker ( talk) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources help meet GNG? LibStar ( talk) 01:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment there are no JSTOR hits. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I find him named in various documents that list government appointments, and he gets some nice acknowledgements in introductions to books, but nothing that gives more than his name. If there is more it may well be in news sources from the countries he served in, such as Croatia. I have no access to that information. Lamona ( talk) 19:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:52, 5 March 2023 (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.