Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Holmes (diplomat)

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 keep. Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Holmes (diplomat)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. The sources merely confirm her role. Those wanting to keep should not just say "ambassadors of major countries are generally notable" but actually find sources to demonstrate WP:BASIC LibStar (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]. I suspect the nominator will claim that these references don't count, because they're related to her role as ambassador, but such a claim would not be supported by policy. Pburka (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

none of these sources are about her as a person as correctly pointed out below and add no weight to notability. She is merely being a government spokesperson, like does a police spokesperson reporting in the media about crime make him notable? No. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article reporting on the words of a police spokesperson would be unlikely to include her name in the headline. Nor would a reporter interview a spokesperson; reporters tend to interview people who are influential in their own right. Nor would the article describe the spokesperson's career and experience, nor would the paper ask the spokesperson about her personal observations on the treatment of women in the host country. While not deep biographical explorations, these articles are sufficient to demonstrate notability. This is far more coverage than we have for many local politicians or professional athletes. Pburka (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You admit yourself these are not biographical explorations, if the interviews were on the life of Patricia Holmes eg how she became a diplomat then that would add to notability, the questions asked in these notability relate to what the Australian government's official position is on various issues relating to Argentina. If we replaced Holmes with another ambassador you'd get very similar answers, ie the official line. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what would make Holmes notable is an actual noted contribution to diplomacy like she led negotiations for a trade agreement or major trade deal, was significantly involved in a major diplomatic dispute, negotiated release of prisoners etc , merely having interviews saying how good the Australian economy is and the usual "we want to cooperate more with your country" doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you're confusing "importance" with "notability". Notability is not determined by great acts, but by significant coverage in reliable sources, a bar which this subject passes. Pburka (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not the subject of this coverage, yes she is being interviewed but that is to determine the Australian Government position, not the life and career of Holmes. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references suggested above contain virtually no material on Ms Holmes as a person: they're interviews focused on Australia's relationship with Argentina. Argentina-Australia relations is a notable topic and those references might be useful in expanding it, but Ms Holmes isn't likely to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry LibStar, but I'm going to once again say that ambassadors are notable by virtue of their position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin will take this into account in the absence of you supplying no actual sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this article, while nominally about relations between the two countries, also contains non-trivial biographical information on Holmes. I can't read the Spanish language sources, but I think I have to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - ambassadors are typically though of as 'usually' notable, as with mayors of large cities. If the subject would pass WP:GNG, then they are notable, period. Since she was also a sub-cabinet foreign office official, and had been at the ambassador rank to several other countries, she easily passes our standards. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2014 (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.