Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Richardson (diplomat)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete. Although it was demonstrated that this individual is mentioned in the various sources, the consensus was that these mentions do not provide enough significant coverage to pass GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Barbara Richardson (diplomat) (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats )
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS  · JSTOR · TWL )

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.") AFAIK Richardson, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an "event of particular diplomatic importance". Klein zach 23:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Stay on deletion or keep until originator and others can find more references. I've had a quick look and it could be a task but perhaps some work put in with proper liks can prove notability. (Solution55 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC))[reply ]
Actually only 10 words have been written in the article in the past six years. Re refs I had a look but didn't find any. --Klein zach 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
WP:GNG; "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria". As of today, this article doesn't have any references at all. --Klein zach 09:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
No, but a quick Google search will verify her post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

verifying her post is not the same as establishing notability. she fails WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  • strong delete fails WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:GNG. Simply being a head of mission does not confer notability. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep. Notable person in a notable position. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. It looks like there are quite a few more articles on GNews behind pay walls or broken links. Pburka (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Following her appointment to Bangladesh, she became ambassador, concurrently, to Zimbabwe and Angola and High Commissioner to Botswana[6] [7] [8] [9]. She held those posts until 2011.[10] This article[11] discusses her appearance on national television in Zimbabwe. Pburka (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - I am satisfied that the first source cited by PBurka above (BIO OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION counts to GNG. The second cite is close and arguable. The others are more or less routine coverage of a politician doing their job. One or two more solid sources should be enough for a GNG pass; I do not believe that the mere position held is sufficient for a pass under the Special Guideline in this instance. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Does not seem to have garnered more than token news coverage and a short bio in the alumni association website for her alma mater. Utterly fails to have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Ray Talk 21:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. Tough posting perhaps, but just a job. Her predecessor Roxanne Dubé looks like an obvious delete too.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment. Regardless of whether she has presumptive notability, she has demonstrable notability per WP:GNG. She has received significant (i.e. more than passing) coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the the subject (see above). The articles specifically report on her speeches, her campaigns and her activities. A simple GNews search turns up dozens of additional articles, some passing and some significant. Some might argue that such coverage is routine for an ambassador, but that argument simply supports a claim of presumptive notability. Pburka (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Pburka, coverage in the passing news is routine for Little League teams, local school math and spelling bee teams, and many others. Please do not confuse "is likely to be mentioned in the news" with significant and lasting notability. One is a strict subset of the other. Ray Talk 03:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
WP:BOMBARD: "A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC)." Klein zach 04:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Do you consider these sources to be trivial or unreliable?
  1. Bangladesh stands at ‘crossroads’ - she is the subject of the article
  2. Canada envoy launches pro-vote campaign in Bangladesh - article about a campaign she led in Bangladesh to encourage voting
  3. Canadian envoy calls for all-party elections in Bangladesh - transcript of a TV news report about the ambassador's campaign
  4. Le Zimbabwe veut exporter les diamants de Marange malgré des oppositions - an article from AFP about her involvement in the Kimberley Process, with reference to an interview on (Zimbabwe?) national TV
  5. Prospects high for Zim diamonds: Diplomat - an article specifically reporting on one of her speeches and her meeting with the Zimbabwean president
These are not trivial mentions. They represent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pburka (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Look for example at the last one: "Outgoing Canada ambassador to Zimbabwe, Ms Barbara Richardson, says prospects are high that the forthcoming Kinshasa KP meeting will approve Zimbabwe’s diamonds to be sold on the open market, despite her country and Australia’s efforts to bar Zimbabwe from selling its gemstones." A reliable source? Really? Or perhaps Richardson is now working for Mugabe? Klein zach 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Kleinzach it really does not establish notability of Richardson. we need indepth coverage about her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:GNG does not call for "in depth" coverage. It calls for "significant" coverage, which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Pburka (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
read under WP:BIO, WP:BASIC : "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". LibStar (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
Firstly, WP:GNG takes priority over other notability guidelines. Secondly, per WP:BASIC, we have "multiple independent sources...to demonstrate notability". Pburka (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

where does it say WP:GNG takes priority? for example, WP:ATHLETE, WP:PROF, WP:ENT take priority over WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

simply making comments in the media does not establish notabilty of the person, eg [12], [13]. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] these 7 sources do not establish notability as she is merely being a spokesperson for the Canadian government, much the same way a police spokesperson might go to the media on crime stories. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete - Being the head of a diplomatic mission does not make the holder of the office notable per se. Some ambassadors or high commissioners do indeed subsequently hold senior posts in their respective foreign ministry or even ministerial or international diplomatic posts (e.g. at the United Nations) which often makes them notable nationally and/or internationally. This person did not hold any such post, as far as I have been able to establish, nor was she the head of a major diplomatic mission. All diplomatic missions are not equal. Some are more important than others, some are rated higher than others. For example, Washington, Moscow, London, Beijing or New Delhi are among the plum missions for diplomats from any country, whatever their rank. Bangladesh, Angola and Zimbabwe are not in the same league. However, local newspapers, wherever the mission may be, often carry reports on the activities of ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel at an embassy in their country. Such reports, like those cited in this article, are not really valid references for notabilty purposes and do not mean that this diplomat or others in her situation are notable or meet the WP:GNG criteria.--Zananiri (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (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.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /