Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Wardle


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sharon Wardle

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 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) 20:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I'm surprised that a person who represent her country in international diplomacy is not as notable as a bloke who is chosen to be one of eleven to kick a ball around for his city. IMO ambassadors are notable just because they are chosen. The fact that they have not been involved in an international incident is an achievement. Am I to understand that you intend to bring the article for every ambassador here? I don't usually get involved in deletion discussions, I prefer to just improve the article. But I'm thinking that might encourage the idea that this process is improving articles. Lets see how this goes. (Being chosen as a national ambassador is impressive which is why it is widely reported). Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Person with the ball-kicking abilities should have things written about him in the press, most ambassadors do not. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Algeria.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. only routine rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: "man chosen to kicks ball down field in different coloured shirt" is, in some eyes, in depth coverage whereas woman chosen to represent her country is just routine stuff. Really? The fact that mistakes have been made in the past is no justification for making another. Oddly whenever these people are mentioned in the press they seem to always mention that they are ambassadors (why would that be?). Now I think that might be because that is thought to be notable... and it is, inherently. Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If 193 UN member states have one Ambassador in every other nation state that's 37,056 ambassadors at any one time, doing day-to-day diplomacy. Most of these don't make the news in their own right, other than routine coverage of their appointments, presenting their credentials, attending routine events etc. The ones who receive substantial coverage for significant events should be included, as should the ones who craft important international agreements or are highly decorated (i.e. Knighthoods/damehoods and other such honours in the UK for example). For the rest of them, I don't think there are enough sources to go on. Uhooep (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I read online that Central African Republic has 18 embassies. The idea that every country might have an ambassador in every other country is incorrect. Only a few operate over 100 embassies (see: List of countries by number of diplomatic missions.) I see the good faith in the inherent notability claim and the counter argument, but please don't frame it with the incorrect starting point that there could be 37,056 of them at any time, when there obviously isn't. CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point .... but even if it were true and we wrote an article for each of them then those articles would still be lost is the ridiculous number of male footballer articles. Your argument underlines that if a country chooses an ambassador they do it because its inherently important to their national interest (there's a thing). Victuallers (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sources for this and probably other ambassadors will be found in the newspapers of the host country, which means that we have language difficulties and not a lot of first-world search coverage. For this person I found this, this, and this, although the latter is not directly about the ambassador. I didn't look far and wide so there probably are more sources, but I don't know how to reach good Gambian info. Lamona (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've upped the references to twelve. I would like to point out that the additions make the person no more notabe than they were when this was nominated. AfD is meant to be a measure of notability not a beauty contest judging whether there is enough obvious evidence of it. One may prefer to not recognise inherent notability. Its your choice. However it exists. Victuallers (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lamona and WP:HEY. There now appears to be enough WP:RS-based significant coverage to pass the notability bar. Sal2100 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good work by . I agree that in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but I seriously doubt whether any British ambassador is, thanks to the level of attention their careers and activities get -- if not the significant honours that usually come their way. Moonraker (talk) 23:31, 6 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.