Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I would think that if none of the people on the list are WP:Notable after a year of this lists being here, then the entire list should be considered for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE is the closest I can think of, but I have never seen a complete "list of" Redlinks before. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Every name on this list is a redlink" does not automatically entail "No name on this list is notable." I don't know if we have a notability or outcomes guideline that specifically helps us deal with ambassadors, but I would have thought they were inherently notable, and this list is encyclopedic and necessary for the eventual organization of these articles. Weak keep, or at absolute worst, merge to Russia-Thailand relations. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If other Lists of Ambassadors of X to X exist, don't think there is any sense in deleting this one. Grey Hood   Talk  09:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many others do exist, but none of the ones I saw in my cursory look were composed entirely of redlinks. But again, as I said in my vote, I'm for keeping this one on the hopefully-not-fallacious grounds that a) ambassadors are notable and b) a list of ambassadors is encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



Weak Keep Ambassadors are notable per consensus on the talk page at WP:DIPLOMAT. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That Talk page happens to be talking about singular people that have Articles, not lists compleatly composed of redlinks. From reading WP:DIPLOMAT, individually they currently fail that, I think WP:POSITION is appropriate to read at this point. To me, it looks as though this list exists just for the sake of having a list. Its simply a regurgitation of information that is available eleswhere. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also WP:LISTPURP which states "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space." Emphasis mine. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And "....not the main space." means ???? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. However, I'd still think the list is useful and would rather see the individual Ambassadors' pages updated, rather than delete this page for lack of info. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see a problem with the list having only red links since the topic itself is encyclopedic, and their inclusion on the list is based on whether they were in fact ambassadors to Thailand, and that is regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own articles - frankie (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep By our established standards for ambassadors, every one of them is individually notable. The criteria for lists of this sort require eligibility ofr Wikipedia articles, not removal of the list because they have yet to be written. This is a first step; this is how the encyclopedia always has grown DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Frankie and DGG, or incubate. 24.97.138.94 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (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.