Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Caton

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Caton

[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)

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, this was interesting. While WP:OUTCOMES tells us that, indeed, "Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable", Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom has over 200 subcategories, most of which are embassies and all of which, as per a dip in and out of a few of 'em, are bluelinked. On that basis, yes yes I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable. Not forgetting that WP:OUTCOMES isn't policy and consensus clearly favours the ambassador, I'm going keep here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A few editors churning out huge amounts of junk articles that fail every and any inclusion criteria is not how we build concensus. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, and was built initially with no inclusion criteria at all, so the existence of articles in and of themselves shows neither consensus nor that such articles conform to inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no, ambassadors are not default notable, and we routinely delete articles on ambassadors that lack sourcing to meet GNG. GNG is not met here, and the argument that we should keep this undersourced article because of other articles that do not meet inclusion criteria is not a good one and should not be given any consideration at all. In the case of UK ambassadors to Finland we only have articles on about half of them. A large number of ambassadors are people who are notable for othere things, so the number of articles we have on ambassadors should not be used to show that ambassadors as a class are notable, and with about half of the UK ambassadors to Finland lacking articles, the argument that we should keep this article just because we have many other articles on ambassadors completely falls on its face.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Finland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of Finnish media don't reveal much of relevance. There's an extremely short STT -supplied story in Helsingin Sanomat [1]. She's also mentioned in (and has a quote in) another story in Turun Sanomat, but is not the subject [2]. But that seems to be it. Curiously, there's a story about a British ambassador named Victoria Caton, but I can't figure out what is going on with the name. In any case, that story isn't much in GNG terms either: basically "she visited Turku and we asked for a few comments about Tony Blair. As for we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable, no. Ljleppan (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2022 (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.