Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Schroeder
- 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! 06:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Dominic Schroeder
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dominic Schroeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. The other 2 are not indepth coverage of Schroeder and do not meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: another drive-by Afd. The sources were all right, but a little thin, I have improved on them. There are other good sources available, as we would expect. Schroeder's part in the removal of Craig Murray is not his finest hour, but it does show the usefulness of having good coverage of senior diplomats here on Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete but actually with a heavy heart because the article actually reads well and does a great job of making a case for Schroeder's notability but there are guidelines and yes, ambassadors aren't inherently notable and no, diplomatic or civil service posts also confer no notability. Interviews are not considered as contributing to WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately, a spat in Uzbekistan and another in Europe don't add up to a clear pass of WP:GNG and that's where we are. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Notable diplomat. Along with the current sources in the article there's a substantial feature on the Ambassador in Børsen 15 October 2019 (cover & pages 22-25) Piecesofuk (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)- Comment: There is significant coverage in Murray, C. (2011). Dirty Diplomacy: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror. United States: Scribner. ISBN 9781416569862 CT55555(talk) 03:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Also in this book, but I think by the same author: Murray, C. (2013). Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador's Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror. United Kingdom: Mainstream Publishing. CT55555(talk) 03:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- This report talks about him a lot, but I don't know how to assess this as a source: Current Developments in European Foreign Policy: Report with Evidence; 43rd Report of Session 2005-06. (2006). United Kingdom: Stationery Office. CT55555(talk) 03:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep, Murray above is writing an autobiography, which has a lot to say about Schroeder, but it was written independent of Schroeder, I assume, as they are essentially at odds with each other, I think. So I think that is independent and gives us a WP:BASIC pass, considering all the other sources. "weak" because it's not the most compelling keep, but still a keep in my assessment. CT55555(talk) 03:46, 1 April 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.