Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatos Tarifa


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fatos Tarifa
Subject request, as he asserts that he does not merit an entry in Wikipedia. I have no opinion on this nomination. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Where did he make this assertion? -- N  scheffey (T/C) 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Via email to Wikimedia, some of which I answer. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So a former Ambassador from Albania to several nations and published author is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry? What a disgraceful nomination.--Thomas.macmillan 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is out of a courtesy to the subject that I nominated this. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Where is the assertion by the subject that he does not merit an article? In any case, a neutral, factual encyclopedia article should exist for all persons of note, without regard to the their personal interest in the project. —  NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 02:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BIO as an international politician. As for his request, note that WP:AUTO states "People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic.". -- N  scheffey (T/C) 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nscheffey, meets WP:BIO. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above comments and the WP:AUTO citation. rootology 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nscheffey. The argument of a subject deciding if there should have an article has also been delt with in several Daniel Brandt AFDed. (One example). In each case the clear consenus was that he did not have that right and that it would cause a dangerous precedence. This article should stay unless the subject can state a good reason for removal. Edgelord 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Pleased to see that a former ambassador is modest, but he is noteworthy (googles up quite legitimately). If there are errors in the article, we should correct them. But deletion is not warranted. Williamborg (Bill) 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nscheffey. There may have been material in an earlier edit that he didn't want publicized, but that's been taken care of through editing. No need to delete an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As notable, however if it can be supported by sources as to why he is no longer in his former position it should be noted in the article as its obviously relevant. The family makeup however is not. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nscheffey, the subject is too humble. :-)  Yamaguchi先生 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable per elements of the bio, however if this person has a good reason for deletion then it should be honored.--DawnTreader 03:30, 2 August 2006 (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.