Fionna Gibb: Ambassadors are not inherently notable.  Most of the coverage is about the rainbow flag incident which is not WP:SIGCOV about her and would be better placed in the relevant bilateral relations article.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:18, 8 July 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 ) 10:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  I found some additional references by searching for the person's name, restricted to the country where she was posted.  That is, I searched for "Fionna Gibb" site:by .  This is often the best way to find additional references about an ambassador or other diplomat.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't regard a number of additional sources are WP:SIGCOV , they mainly merely confirm she held a meeting with the Belarus government.  such as [16] , [17] and [18] .  This one is short and confirms a few biographical details of Gibb.  This one is her commenting as a representative of the UK government.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Belarus .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG .  The controversy may be suitable for discussion on another article, but it's not really about her.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  12:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per the sources.  NYC Guru ( talk ) 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is enough to support her notability in my opinion including coverage of an attempted assassination in Yemen that she survived, and I think ambassadors probably should be considered more notable than not for inclusion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources, as needed to meet WP:NBIO .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 10:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Here is one more source from MENA REPORT via ProQuest [19] .  WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with a long note about what trivial type sources don't help).  The sources we have seem to provide that at this point.  — siro χ o 22:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible and Siroxo.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:26, 27 July 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.

Discussion outcome: keep