Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kent

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 no consensus‎. There is a fundamental disagreement here among participatns on whether or not the article subject passes WP:BASIC. I don't think that we will get a stronger consensus with an additional relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kent

[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:BASIC. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Sole acceptable source is from BBC Scotland Business news reporting on his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability as a "mention in passing (example given at BASIC is "John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University")" AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets. Only about 30-40 awarded every year in a country of 67 million people. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As we established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shearman, honours, which are routine for British ambassadors to receive from their employer, do not eliminate the requirements for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We established no such thing. Only a minority of diplomats or even ambassadors have high honours such as the CMG. You made a patently false claim by citing only very senior ambassadors who do have such honours and the AfD was closed before I could answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not false. A very large number of British ambassadors have received honours from their employer, many with fairly unremarkable careers. That doesn't override BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who are you to state they've had unremarkable careers? A high honour would suggest otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only instance of IDONTLIKEIT is your approach to the requirement for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC after adding references which were trivial to find: WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

The two most recent sources you've added are primary. I actually did see the government sources before nominating but I know that per BASIC "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some routine announcements about his appointments, but nothing independent, secondary, and significant. And content following "According to the official biography" is obviously not independent or secondary. Receiving an award also doesn't mean the subject is exempt from notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass BASIC, see e.g. Buenos Aires Times (158 words), Nation Thailand (327 words), MercoPress (176 words), VietnamPlus (about some sort of award he received from the Vietnam government, 100 words), Press and Journal (287 words), Bangkok Post (1000+ words w/quotes), etc. Also, if everyone failing ANYBIO but meeting BASIC gets an article, and everyone meeting ANYBIO has to pass BASIC to get an article, that effectively means that ANYBIO is 100% wholly worthless. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a purpose in having such criteria, such as that categories of people winning major awards should be complete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A point I've made many times. If ANYBIO is routinely ignored then what on earth is the point of it? The point of it is to catch people who have had careers in unglamorous occupations but who have received high honours from their country, in recognition that, glamorous or not, they have made a significant contribution to the world. Wikipedia is not a reality TV talent contest, but a serious encyclopaedia that should cover such people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except WP:ANYBIO explicitly, unambiguously states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It does not in any sense override BASIC requirements. It's a guide that indicates a likelihood of notability, not a free pass. If you want that to change, feel free to propose it instead of bringing up reality television at every AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources identified, I can't see them contributing to notability. Interviews are primary sources. A brief mention of his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association is not an acceptable source as I pointed out in the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing all of those sources, especially the Bangkok Post 1,300-word feature on 'The workaholic ambassador', which contains over 700 words on Kent that is not quotes, is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware what it says. I'm pointing out that if it's sneered at whenever it's mentioned then it's utterly pointless, which suggests it's intended to be taken into consideration. What do you think it's there for precisely? Don't actually think I've mentioned reality television before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to meet WP:BASIC, per others. Sir MemeGod  15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY and possibly even WP:GNG. Mark Kent was in the news in April 2023 because of his public row with an Argentine government minister Guillermo Carmona (whom he called a "shameless populist politician", strong words from a former British ambassador to Argentina), e.g. in the Daily Record. The 2021 feature article in Buenos Aires Times counts as WP:SIGCOV; there are several paragraphs of the editor-in-chief's own assessment of Kent's track record framing the Q&A interview. Ambassadors around the world come and go, often without much fanfare beyond their various public appearances, but this is an example of a former diplomat who has managed to generate coverage about himself even outside his new day job as a Scotch whisky spokesperson (which has seen him featured in articles like this one in the Sunday Post in Dundee which probably doesn't count toward notability in the Wikipedia sense). Thanks to Jonathan A Jones for making improvements to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (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.