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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Campbell[edit]

Sharon Campbell (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. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article in The Guardian alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG, and there are other reliable sources. For anyone willing to spend some time on improving our coverage of the diplomatic profession, which is important, instead of attacking it, this would be an easy article to improve significantly. Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Supporting deletion is not attacking a profession. The AfD process is a legitimate part of WP. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is attacking a profession, but simply restating policy; people don't get a "pass" here for being ambassadors, we need sourcing about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course the AfD process is legitimate, LibStar, but it is best pursued by people who do not come to it with an agenda. You have this long list on your user page, do you also have a list of diplomatic articles you have created or improved? Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    that question is irrelevant to the notability of Sharon Campbell. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Moonraker, I can confirm that LibStar does in fact have an "agenda" which I've seen him following for some time: deleting articles which don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. We sometimes disagree at AfDs but I'm glad he's doing this. For biographies of living people we have an additional duty of care to ensure notability and referencing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find sources talking about the ambassador; source 4 from the Times is fine, but we need more than just an announcement of the appointment. Has the person done anything in their role the press wrote about? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Sharon Campbell is a notable figure and the sources there in are credible and reliable like the times, gov.uk so instead of deleting it, just an improvement to it would be better. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  .gov.uk is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete disregarding the gov.uk primary sources, the rest of the sources are mainly based on interviews. I know Wikipedia:Interviews is just an essay but I'm a bit wary of interviews as reliable sources, so leaning to delete here. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The Guardian article and this Tico Times article I just added to the list of refs:[1] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep per AB's source above and The Guardian source. Whilst the Gov website is primary, the interviews also show notability in my opinion – if she was not notable, the would have likely not been conducted or published. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus. Giving this one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reliable secondary sources prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 14:47, 13 December 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.