Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Ambassadors to Iran


 * 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. Rlevse 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Australian Ambassadors to Iran and vice versa


A list of non-notbale public servants, delete per NOT --Peta 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is NOT... what? To the nominator: If you're citing WP:NOT as a reason for deletion, please at least let us know which specific aspect of WP:NOT you are alluding to. Or did you mean WP:NOTABILITY? --Canley 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly "indiscriminate list of information". I don't think this list needs deleting, as ambassadors can be notable, but a list of links to non-entries doesn't really result in me knowing anything more than I did before reading it. Andjam 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate information is what I was thinking when I made the nom. In my opinion, as far as BIO goes these individuals are on par with "local officials" i.e. they need to be pretty notable to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia.--Peta 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we really apply WP:BIO here? These are lists, not biographies. If the people listed are deemed not notable for articles of their own, then just remove the internal links unless a sourced article about a notable subject does exist. That said, I'm sure that hundreds if not thousands of ambassadors are notable enough for articles due to other achievements or positions, and I don't think we can easily apply the "local official" designation so broadly to them. I do, however, agree with JRG, these articles would be better as a "Country A-Country B relations" article with these lists as subsets. --Canley 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't need lists on everything.--cj | talk 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  week Keep unless we want to make it and all similar one a category. I note that there are over 20,000 different possibilities, though not all are likely to be of high priority. They would serve as lists of notable public servants about whom we need articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per NOT being NOTable. --Steve (Slf67)talk 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - where else does this information go? Can't we have a general page on "Iranian-Australian relations" and include these people as one small section of an article? Why do we always have to go for the easy option and delete everything? JRG 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until a proper discussion is held on the whole series of hundreds (if not thousands) of List of X Ambassadors to Y articles and the like. e.g. List of Canadian ambassadors to the United States, List of ambassadors from Luxembourg to India, List of Ambassadors from New Zealand to Timor-Leste, List of ambassadors from Egypt. Nuttah68 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's not going to happen, is it? That other crap exists is not a reason to keep non-notable information --Steve (Slf67)talk 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That depends, a number of AfDs are closed with no result whilst suggesting a wider debate, such as Articles for deletion/International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary. Nuttah68 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Senior diplomats are very often quoted as representatives of their own countries, referred to as taking part in various official events or treaties, and frequently cited as experts in the media of their own countries, especially after retirement. Still, every single ambassador may not be individually worth an article. But even if the ambassadors are not always individually notable, the positions are, and lists like these ones can be very useful for establishing context and chronology in other historical articles. There is in fact a major reference work with lists just like these ones, but covering the period 1648-1815, Repertory of the diplomatic representatives of all countries since the peace of Westphalia (1648), published by an international committee of historians in three volumes 1936-1960. A review of the first volume called it a "[work] of immense value to historians as a book of reference" (Basil Williams in The English Historical Review 1937, p. 709), a review of the final volume summarized it as an "indispensible work of reference" (D. B. Horn in The English Historical Review 1968, p. 189). Pharamond 14:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This nomination is not grounded in a sound understanding of any criteria for deletion. Ambassadors are highly notable, particularly in the arena of foreign relations.  It's not necessarily of interest to everyone, but it's notable, verifiable, and most importantly: discriminate.  Also, I don't think the nominator understands the role an ambassador fills in International Relations.  The suggestion that an Ambassador is on par with a "local official" is not based on a reasonable assessment of the two jobs.  --JayHenry 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, these highly notable people, not one of which anyone has bothered to give their own article. So while they me notable in the area of foreign relations, they obviously aren't notable in the area of Wikipedia. --Steve (Slf67)talk 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But real world notability (as in "notable in the area of foreign relations") can hardly be irrelevant to Wikipedia, can it? Pharamond 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has bothered to give them an article, therefore they are not notable? That's not a valid argument.  WP:LIST says that one of the reasons to build a list is for development purposes -- to catalog articles that have yet to be written.  Unless someone can site an actual wikipedia policy justifying this deletion, I don't see how this can be deleted. --JayHenry 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nuttah68. The list criteria are clear and precise, and ambassadors are likely to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Weak keep for these particular examples as they appear to be incomplete, and one doesn't even have dates. I'd accept a merge as suggested by JRG. --Scott Davis Talk 12:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've noticed a trend I find disturbing of nominating almost any and every list on wikipedia for deletion. I see several arguments, from those wanting to delete the lists, that are fallacious and yet persistent.  First, I gently encourage anyone who thinks this (and other lists on AFD, for that matter) is "indiscriminate" to actually go to wiktionary and look up the definition of the word.  A muddled understanding of this word -- the notion that it refers to lists of minor importance or something -- is leading to a lot of unnecessary deletions.  Second, I've seen numerous suggestions that if every item (or most) on a list does not contain a blue link, the list is invalid.  This isn't the point of lists.  WP:LIST explicitly states that lists can be used to develop articles that have not been written.  But lists are also important that simply record chronology, etc.  This list imparts useful, verifiable, notable information.  The fact that the links are all red is completely irrelevant and should not be cited as a criteria for deletion.  Many problematic lists will have red links, but this is not a valid reason to delete all lists that have red links. --JayHenry 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "disturbing trend" in this case is limited to a group of Australian editors who are in the process of tidying and pruning Australian lists into a manageable set for the limited effort available in that geography. Our focus is limited to the collection at Lists of Australians and the discussion there. --Steve (Slf67)talk 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slf67, I didn't mean to suggest that the trend is the result of a cabal of editors. I didn't mean to imply that any individual is responsible for all the deletions.  I sincerely apologize if that's how it was interpreted.  I just meant that there's a lot of lists being nominated recently, and I repeatedly see several policies incorrectly cited.  If the red links bother you, why not just remove the links?  It's a useful timeline that satisfies all of wikipedia's policies. --JayHenry 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lack of inclusion in Wikipedia is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability, and vice versa.  The lists can be kept as aiding in the development of articles on "people who are not currently covered by Wikipedia, but who should have their own articles".  Please note, this may not apply to all of the persons on this list, but the determination of that is a matter for the talk page.  If the articles are created and a better mechanism for aiding development is advanced, renominate for deletion.  -- Black Falcon 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Black Falcon, JayHenry and others. Although I'd probably un-link the redlinks. Orderinchaos78 13:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redlinks can be good because they encourage others to write an article there when they see it. Also it gives you an idea of the need for an article when you look at "what links here". Mathmo Talk 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to include only lists of British or US ambassadors would be POV. -- User:Docu
 * Keep - per JayHenry. Mathmo Talk 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. List of notable public servants. Rebecca 23:08, 11 March 2007 (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.