Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Evans (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Evans

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Last AfD was no consensus, but my previous analysis showed that sources were either not indepth or third party. A number of keep !voters tried to argue inherent/automatic notability of ambassadors which is definitely not the case. Still fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. None of the sources listed in the article support notability, and the article subject does not have automatic notability under WP:NPOL, which confers a presumption of notability only on [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. I have reviewed the !keep votes at the previous AfD and have found them unconvincing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No extensive sourcing for the ambassador. Same as last time, could be notable with sourcing, but we have none... Simple confirmation that she held the post doesn't cut it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 19 September 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.