Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Marie Byrnes


 * 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. Tone 07:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Kate Marie Byrnes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ambassadors are not automatically notable - fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: I beg to differ; I'm not sure how our criterion (WP:NPOL) regarding "[p]oliticians [...] who have held international, national, or sub-national [...] office" excludes ambassadors, who, by definition, hold positions of international regard. I can tell you that Who's Who, for instance, most certainly cares about civil servants, which include members of the diplomatic service. If I may, I would have also preferred a more personalized message informing me of this AfD. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 03:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I nominated this for deletion through an automated process, so that message was automatically generated, apologies. In any case, how does she pass WP:GNG? At best, I see routine coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the communication of the message was minor, at best; but thank you all the same. As for the substantive question, I seem to recall that WP:N allows for an inclusive either/or proposition vis-à-vis notability for the purposes of inclusion — either WP:GNG, or WP:NPOL, or both. (If this has changed, and memory is rather fallible: again, please let me know.) I gladly concede, of course, that information about Ambassador Byrnes is rather sparse, and that, yes, the article, as written, does need more and better sourcing; I don't think, though, that those flaws merit deletion. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 11:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I came across this at NPP, and while you are correct you need to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, I don't think either are satisfied in this case based on my own WP:BEFORE search, but I'm happy to see what consensus decides. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment, even if it's one with which I disagree. I await the consensus of the community as well. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 12:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as is customary for verifiable ambassadors. Pam  D  08:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NPOL is not relevant as she is not an elected politician, she is an ambassador (a position for a public servant). Notability (people)/WP:GNG applies, informed by WP:DIPLOMAT (which is only an essay). The article does not demonstrate any particular notability for this individual. --Scott Davis Talk 11:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Ambassador to North Macedonia. Simply being an ambassador doesn't give one an automatic pass. There are AMBASSADORS and ambassadors. The ambassador to North Macedonia is one of the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I beg to differ as well. Ambassadors are notable. Whether they are ambassadors to big or small countries is not relevant.--Darwinek (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How are they notable? We grant notability to things or people which will almost always have coverage - the coverage of this particular individual is rather sparse, and we've never granted ambassadors automatic notability before. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete While it is possible that an ambassador can pass WP:GNG, they are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL (also see WP:POLOUTCOMES). In this case, the current coverage of the subject includes a quick blurb in the Hill and a one line mention in Politico. The Kyiv Post article is more interesting, but that does not make this subject more notable than most ambassadors. --Enos733 (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reviewed the claim of WP:HEY and still find myself in recommending delete. The Economist profile is not an independent source that we normally count for notability. Nor do I think the additional formatting and sourcing improve the notability claim. In general, our community has generally seen passing WP:GNG as requiring substantive, independent sourcing of the subject, not a tally of number of references. --Enos733 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. It is actually not "customary" for us to keep inadequately sourced articles about ambassadors just because their existence is technically verifiable — there are certainly ambassadors in the world who have enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG and/or held NPOL-passing political roles at other times in their careers, and we certainly do keep those, but we do not deem ambassadorship to be an "inherently" notable role that always guarantees every ambassador an article without regard to their sourceability: for ambassadors, it's always GNG or bust. But the sources here aren't getting her over GNG: there's a primary source that isn't support for notability at all, two very short blurbs about her that aren't substantive enough to count as notability clinchers if they're the best you can do, and one glancing namecheck of her existence in an article whose core subject is Mike Pompeo. That's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - being the first ambassador from a world power to a new nation might be sufficient. I think past outcomes might not be helpful. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a new nation though, it split off from Yugoslavia in 1991. It was just recently renamed. And that doesn't change the lack of sourcing. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Ambassadors in the states aren't like Ambassadors in e.g. France or the UK or Germany they are trained professionals. In the states, they are choosen by the president when he is elected and is perhaps or maybe clueless, but they ambassadors and are treated as such abroad with all of pomp and circumstance of a ambassador. There are senior government officials and on top of that, I don't believe having two standards is the best approach, particularly when the majority of countries ambassadors are professional trained folk from the very best schools, who tend to make a mark.  scope_creep Talk  21:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I must point out 1) this is a global encyclopedia and any inherent notability assigned to a particular position would also apply to all individuals holding that position and 2) not all US ambassadors are political picks. Many US ambassadors are career diplomats, and in most presidencies the ratio was 70% career and 30% political appointees (See this article in Foreign Policy). --Enos733 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note 1. Well that is debatable. It is my experience there is some situations were individuals or groups of individuals are supposed to be general equally notable across the board, but close examination finds they are not. In some situations an individual or groups of individuals may work or exist in environment that being a member makes then so strange and bizarre and sometimes ultra specialised that it automatically makes then notable, even if perhaps they exist in some kind of industry that is common across the world. And it reflects on the notability for particular types. The notability criteria are written in the general case and fairly basic and that they can do. If they tried to make it reflect the true reality of the world, there would be 10's of thousands of pages on notability criteria, hence the reason they are only guidelines. That doesn't apply to this Afd. Note 2: I know that. I was thinking about another article when I wrote it, but as a career diplomat, she is notable.  scope_creep Talk  10:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is a question of whether the person has media coverage about her or not, not a question of whether she is or isn't a professional diplomat. The US isn't even particularly unique in this regard; lots of countries, my own included, also tend to choose powerful political figures for the most critically important and sensitive diplomatic roles, while leaving the less essential ones to the conventional diplomats. In fact, the article plainly says that Byrnes was and is a career foreign service officer, and does not imply that she has a political background or that she was picked for more political reasons than usual — and even if somebody was picked for political reasons rather than as a career diplomat, they still have to show media coverage about them to get over WP:GNG before they're accepted as notable. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep being an ambassador is not an automatic pass of WP:NPOL however the subject passes WP:SIGCOV so it is a keep Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you could please explain why you think she passes WP:SIGCOV, that would be very helpful. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is there any WP:SIGCOV of her at all? Could you kindly identify and show us the three best and most substantive sources about her for the purposes of establishing that she would pass GNG? Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:SIGCOV is not always in the article, however a nominator does a WP:BEFORE to see if the subject is notable. In this case the subject is notable. WP:NEXIST. WP:N asks for WP:RS which can be one or more than one. The N section mentions (multiple) which is more than one. Not three. Note: People who favor deletion call for three sources when only two are needed and in some cases one. Read the requirements of WP:N There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected Merriam Webster defines Multiple as more than one. consisting of, including, or involving more than one In any event there are multiple sources, with biographies and interviews and international coverage of the subject. Some is trivial and some is in depth, but all go toward establishing notability. The subject is a career diplomat and as such her former post was Deputy chief of mission of the US Embassy in Athens. Sources exist for that post as well.
 * The National Herald
 * Ekathimerini
 * Oculus News mini-Bio
 * Testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
 * The Economist has a long BIO
 * Hazlis Economist Bio
 * mia.mk Morte bio
 * Министерство За Надворешни Работи
 * Gazetaexpress
 * UA Wire
 * Tirana Post
 * Washington Examiner
 * Quoted in Newsweek Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) National Herald: Q&A interview in which she's the speaker, about something other than herself, thus not a source about her for the purposes of establishing her notability.
 * (2) Ekathimerini: Short blurb, not substantive for the purposes of establishing her notability.
 * (3) Oculus News: WordPress blog, not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing her notability.
 * (4) Testimony to the Senate Committee: this is a transcript of a speech by her, not a piece of media coverage about her, and thus is not relevant to establishing her notability.
 * (5) and (6) The Economist: People are not notable just because they have biographical "speakers bureau" profiles on the self-published websites of conferences they've attended; that makes the reference a directly affiliated primary source, not a notability-supporting independent source.
 * (7) MIA: not a source about her, just a video clip of her speaking about something other than herself.
 * (8) MFA: Government press release, not a reliable or independent source.
 * (9) Gazeta Express: Very short blurb about her initial arrival at a new diplomatic posting, not substantive enough to be a magic GNG pass all by itself if it's the best you can do.
 * (10) UA Wire: WordPress blog, not a reliable source.
 * (11) Tirana Post: Very short blurb about her initial arrival at a new diplomatic posting, not substantive enough to be a magic GNG pass all by itself if it's the best you can do.
 * (12) Washington Examiner: Unreliable source, glancingly mentioning her existence as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is something other than her.
 * (13) Newsweek: Just like #12, "quoted in news story about somebody else" is not a notability-maker. She has to be the subject of a source, not just a giver of soundbite in an article about a different subject, before it counts toward demonstrating her notability.
 * In other words, you've provided 11 sources that are doing absolutely nothing at all in terms of notability, and two that are a start down the right path but aren't substantive enough to get her to the finish line all by themselves if they're the best of the bunch. That's not what we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed review of sources - of course I disagree with your dismissals. We can also apply WP:ANYBIO to this person per the awards denoted in the Economist source: If I feel ambitious I will update the article. Looks like an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Superior Honor Award
 * 2) Two Meritorious Honor Awards
 * 3) Expeditionary Service Award from the U.S. Department of State
 * 4) Meritorious Civilian Service Awards from the U.S. Department of the Army.
 * I'm with Bearcat there - I don't see any sources that grant notability, and WP:ANYBIO doesn't matter if WP:GNG isn't met. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As the nominator of the article, your position does not have to be reiterated. So far the majority of the editors who assessed the article disagree with your opinion. And that was before I fixed up the article a bit. I will also add more to the article when I motivate myself. It is work. You misunderstand the WP:N requirements. It is either subject specific, or GNG or ANYBIO. Your belief that WP:ANYBIO doesn't matter if WP:GNG isn't met is incorrect as well (please read WP:ANYBIO). It is getting WP:BLUDGEONy in here so I will leave the AfD and just focus on the article Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ANYBIO is not automatically applied to just any award that exists, either. It applies to awards that generate media coverage, such as an Oscar or a Pulitzer or a Giller, and not to awards that do not. ANYBIO still requires GNG-worthy news stories about the presentation of the award. If all a person had to do to get a Wikipedia article was say they had won an award, and they didn't have to show a news story about it, then we would automatically have to keep an article about everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest or employee of the month at Arby's — so it's the existence or non-existence of news stories about the presentation of the award that tells us whether the award is a notability-making one or not. And it doesn't matter whether you agree with my assessment of your sources or not, because my assessment of the sources was completely correct. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Article, sources, citations have been significantly improved.  Per WP:HEY, this is not the article it was when nominated for deletion.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the criteria at WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will base my Keep position primarily on WP:GNG. Even if there aren't a lot of sources that cover her in great detail, the large number of sources that deal partially with her do add up. For a prominent ambassador like this, I would assume general notability unless there really were a dearth of any coverage in reliable sources, which isn't the case here.Naomi.piquette (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Ambassadors are not automatically notable but this one has received significant coverage in Ukranian sources and passes WP:NPOL. Devopam (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.