Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Hand

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. 4 of the 5 supplied sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Angola, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NBIO, no coverage of her person - the only coverage is related to her mission and her representing her government. no independent coverage of her as a person. --hroest 02:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - disclaimer that I wrote this page, but I've just cleaned it up a bit and added a load more references such that I think I've managed to establish notability. I now don't see why this article should be deleted, but please let me know if you think I'm missing something. Thanks! Gazamp (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contribution and the work you put into this. However WP:GNG / WP:BASIC states that the subject must be covered in depth by multiple independent sources - this means multiple WP:RS articles (so not government pages but independent journalistic articles from the Economist/Times/Guardian etc) that have an in-depth piece about her specifically (and not just her day-to-day work that is associated with her doing her job) or one-line mentions of her/a quote from her. This is what is currently missing to establish notability. Similarly she seems to not pass the bar in WP:ANYBIO of a major award or major contribution to her field. --hroest 13:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would the combination of these sources not establish notability?

I'd say they are non-trivial enough to together satisfy the first bullet point at WP:BASIC, no? Gazamp (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not Secondary sources and dont count towards WP:BASIC, no. --hroest 16:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is enough significant coverage here for the WP:GNG. That is not about importance, but this is a significant career, too. Moonraker (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: can you please state which articles specifically you consider "enough coverage" since I dont see any? Thanks --hroest 14:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hannes Röst, one of the better ones is the article from Jornal de Angola, but all of the non-primary sources go to notability, either individually or collectively, and there are sure to be many others. I am uneasy about seeing a series of AfDs targetting British ambassadors, with the same editors' names popping up again and again on the "delete" side. How would it be if you were to spend some time finding reliable sources and improving the pages, instead? Moonraker (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the AfD discussion is intended to discuss the subject with respect to deletion guidelines, not for improving the article (even though improving the article is appreciated, feel free to have a go at it). I dont have a problem with the quality of the article (see below) and I am more interested in a more general discussion about ambassadors and their role in WP. Also I think this is the only ambassador related discussion that I have participated in today --hroest 16:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have thought a lot more about this, consulted previous discussions in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) and essays like WP:DIPLOMAT (which reflect thinking of some editors even though they may not be official policy) and I have kept my judgement but with a more in-depth reasoning. It seems there are several articles that feature the subject, however most relate to her official capacity as ambassador and her work as ambassador and not to her personally. In general government officials are often in the media for representing their governments and for things they say on behalf of their governments, not necessarily because of interest in their personal biography and we should keep the two separate. Even most of the interviews talk about her work and are about the diplomatic relationship, not about her personally. It seems a lot of the material would better be integrated into an article on Angola–United Kingdom relations which seems to be missing at the moment (and could be built similar to Angola–United States relations). It seems similar discussions have previously played out in WP:DIPLOMAT and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2015#Ambassadors_and_Diplomats the last time in 2015 with a similar consensus: diplomats are not inherently notable and creating headlines when they represent their country officially as senior government officials doesnt make the person itself notable (similar to how we dont have articles about the press secretary of a company but rather an article about the company itself). This fact is also reflected when she is quoted in newspapers and in interviews, which are not inherently about her but about the UK-Angola relations and policy. I dont speak Portuguese very well but statements like "Para nós, isso é fundamental, sobretudo, para o desenvolvimento, sucesso e prosperidade de Angola" (Google Translate: For us, this is fundamental, above all, for the development, success and prosperity of Angola) clearly indicate that she talks about "us" as the UK / the country and not about herself personally. --hroest 16:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think there's enough coverage to pass notability, for example The Independent From Welsh secretary in Barry to Our Woman in Belarus, The Daily Telegraph International: One Stop The Asylum - But Loving Every Moment, South Wales Echo Our Woman In, Aberdeen Evening Express A Belarus first for Jessica, The Times British envoy leads walkout Piecesofuk (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep There appear to be enough sources, either those in the article itself, or noted in this discussion which show the notability of Jessica Hand.Historyday01 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Piecesofuk has demonstrated clear significant coverage above on top of what's already in the article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am willing to withdraw my nomination but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal) states I can only do this if there is unanimous keep. Would @Hannes Röst: reconsider their vote? LibStar (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources discussed above seem sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved substantially per WP:HEY. I spot checked some sources added, and some are dedicated pieces about her, or otherwise dedicate a non-trivial amount of time stating her views, particularly those on Angola. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My take on the sources is that they satisfy WP:SIGCOV and meet the WP:NOTABILITY threshold in WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Substantial improvements to the article should also be noted, e.g. WP:HEY applies. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2023 (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.