Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Campbell


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 01:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sharon Campbell

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Keep This seems to be one of a number of drive-by nominations of British ambassadors to Costa Rica, but for me the article in The Guardian alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG. Other coverage so far is a little thin, but there are many other hits, as we would expect with a British ambassador. The GNG is not of course anything to do with importance, so in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics it would be hard for one to achieve such obscurity. And what may be "routine coverage" for an ambassador is at a higher level than for less notable roles. 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) 13:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 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) 16:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Costa Rica,  and Haiti.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete A search of ("Sharon Campbell" ambassador) did not come up with significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Moonraker. I'd say the current coverage is thin, but is enough to support the article remaining. Surely, the article should be improved, but the OP should remember that AfD is not substitution for article cleanup.Historyday01 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep It is clearly possible to expand the article using reliable sources about her time as an ambassador. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These sources are all 1 line mentions and none is in detail about Campbell (nor is the subject of the source). Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe the above mentioned sources are adequate to create a BLP?  // Timothy :: talk  05:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. Source eval:
 * 1.  "Sharon Campbell - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2020.	Government website, fails IS
 * 2. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Dominican Republic and Non-Resident Ambassador to the Republic of Haiti". GOV.UK. Retrieved 10 March 2021.	Government website, fails IS
 * 3. ^ Adewunmi, Bim (3 July 2011). "A very diplomatic marriage". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 January 2020.	Human interest story / interview. Not IS RS.
 * 4. ^ "Appointment: Ambassador to Costa Rica and Non Resident Ambassador to Nicaragua". The Times. 25 June 2011. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2 January 2020.	Government notice published in London paper about appointment, not IS, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

From above
 * mention with short quote
 * Article about a completely different subject, mentions the subject with short quote, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
 * mention with short quote, article about another subject, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth
 * mention, not even a quote. About another subject, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
 * Nothing in ProQuest or JSTOR.
 * BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. THis has none. The keep votes have failed to provide any IS RS for this BLP.  // Timothy :: talk  05:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said Timothy. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Timothy's well-done source assessment. Ambassadors are not automatically notable. Onel 5969  TT me 20:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep I think she's notable enough for Wikipedia. "Ambassadors are not inherently notable", is there a discussion that came to that conclusion? According to Wikipedia ambassadors are the highest ranking diplomats in international diplomacy which I believe would suggest notability. Also she held ambassadorial roles as British Ambassador to Haiti and British Ambassador to Costa Rica, both have their own articles which seems to suggest that they are notable and would lead to dead links and we would no longer know that the Costa Rican and Haitian Ambassadors were the same person and so devalues Wikipedia. She's featured in a British Broadsheet The Guardian A very diplomatic marriage, and other articles, for example in Costa Rica: New ambassadors: A foreign-service love story and Departing British ambassadors reflect on four-year tenure in Costa Rica Piecesofuk (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided by Piecesofuk are sufficient to pass GNG. That said, the community determined that ambassadors do not have any inherent notability and must be evaluated through GNG. A lenghy discussion about WP:DIPLOMAT occurred in 2015. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 22 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.