Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dalgleish (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. I found the Keep rationales more convincing, especially tracking down sources. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalgleish (diplomat)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Keep: The Diplomacy & Commerce page alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG, and 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) 13:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 5 March 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 and Croatia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete coverage is routine rather than indepth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Diplomacy & Commerce source is an interview and the other sources in the article are from the UK government, his employer, and are not independent. Present sourcing in the article does not satisfy the GNG. None of the JSTOR hits relate to this particular Andrew Dalgleish, most date from prior to his birth. Google books hits a similar problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of them,, I agree, but not all. And would you say why you are suggesting that an interview can't be a reliable source? I might agree that primary sources do not count for notability, but they can still be relied on for simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an article about him and his diplomatic activity, in The Nation (India). This has a significant non-interview introduction (7 paragraphs) in Total Croatia News. Lamona (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There are a mere 2 hits in JSTOR, and I'm not sure if it is even the same person as this ambassador. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This Andrew Dalgleish clearly is the Andrew Dalgleish who is a senior British diplomat, . It would be most helpful if you would use the Jstor sources to improve the article. Moonraker (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An "Andrew Dalgleish" search on JSTOR produces 21 results for me. Most concern an eponymous British trade unionist active in the late colonial period; not one I see relates to a current British diplomat.  Happy to stand corrected. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I was not suggesting an interview cannot be used for the verification of certain facts, however, an interview, in almost all circumstances (and certainly not here), cannot be used by itself to establish notability, that is, it does not meet the criteria of being an independent, secondary, reliable source. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed,, we agree on what you said above, but is that based on some policy or just on someone's low opinion of the interview format? If an interview is written and published by an independent reliable publisher, we clearly would not rely on the whole of it for opinion, but why not for notability? Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The references on the article already, plus finding this interview, collectively establish solid enough notability for me. Gazamp (talk) 15:30, 7 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.