Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Blackburne

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. This is numerically even, but the arguments to delete are substantively stronger: if SIGCOV has not been demonstrated, evidence of meeting a different criterion, or an IAR argument, are needed to keep an article. The "keep" arguments as written essentially strengthen the case for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Blackburne[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 20:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine coverage rather than indepth of this individual. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very cautiously because I am generally in favor of keeping ambassador pages if possible and they are helpful in expanding the network of diplomacy-related articles more broadly, but only if the article is expanded promptly to include content from reliable sources

Ppt91 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so far the article has 2 sources, 1 being primary. What are the additional sources? We need more to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having done the searches and added content that I found, I think she passes WP:BASIC notability, meaning there isn't any sources that give significant coverage, but there is enough that we can piece together from shorter writing about her. CT55555(talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the added content, it all looks like trivial coverage. Despite her distinguished career I don't think this meets BASIC. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the sources in the article. NYC Guru (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see multiple independent sources focussed mainly on her, or any indication she has been involved in major events. As someone in the diplomatic service, there are going to be good sources that testify to her existence and position, but that's not enough in my view.OsFish (talk) 08:23, 13 February 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.