Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia


 * 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 (non-admin closure) The consensus is that lists of ambassadors are notable. Darkspots (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Utterly, utterly obscure topic - almost certainly of no interest to anyone Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep nation-to-nation ambassadors have achieved notability, lists of them are fully acceptable, regardless of how obscure the topic is in some people's opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete seeing as the page is simply a carbon (red-linked) copy of this website, this should be eliminated. Wikipedia is not a mirror. Eusebeus (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also keep the following: .--Avala (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wall of text hits you for 10,000. You die Protonk (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Avala, may I direct you to WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:POINT? I've removed your mega-block of text. Be careful, that kind of editing is not helping and tends to have consequences. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that we are discussing a type of article here? So if this one is kept all others must be kept as well, if this one is deleted all others must be deleted as well. Also you have directed me at essays, not official policies per which you can remove someone's edit. You are not even an admin, you actually participate in this vote. I will return my edit.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when does holding the mop have anything to do with removing bad-faith edits? And since when are we discussing every type of the article? And since when can't people click the diff link I provided to read your WP:POINT violation? No, it is not a policy. But it is a behavioural guideline. People have been blocked for less, and it would do no harm to follow a standard endorsed by the Wikipedia community. And WP:ALLORNOTHING is just common sense. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add it to the end of the section as a collapsable show/hide table because I have good will but I don't like your threats. I also dislike your unauthorized removal of my edits, especially considering some users have said "Keep per Avala" and then when you removed it, it seems they agreed to my one word statement saying "Keep" and not to my reasoning regarding other articles which must be mentioned. --Avala (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you misunderstand. I linked to your edit diff, so any interested editor can easily view it. Your mass of text is unnecessary, and as this page is transcluded on WP:AfD, every time anyone loads Articles for Deletion they have to view your WP:POINT, which is extremely disruptive. And it is not a threat, I am informing you of the relevant policies and indicated that administrators (of which I am not one of) don't tend to look kindly on their violations, I can't enforce these rules any more than you. It was a friendly warning, no need to get aggressively defensive. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert my edits and remove my replies. You may have tried to place it in a collapsible table but in order for that to do anything the table has to actually be collapsed. And even so, it is a completely unnecessary and prime example of WP:POINT. Pray tell, what are you trying to achieve by transcluding your list that I don't by linking to it? +Hexagon1 (t) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. These lists feature notable persons and are of historical and political interest. Diplomatic relations and the people who conduct them are of great encyclopedic significance. As such historical information is in the public domain, it being taken from a government website is not a reason to delete, but good sourcing. Sandstein (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Avala. If all of those lists exists we either keep this one, or delete the whole lot of them. -- JulesN   Talk  20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Avala. Ford MF (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Despite it being only obscure to non-mexican/serbians this is notable and what makes wikipedia a good encyl. -Kain Nihil (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It might have been a bit POINT-y in its delivery, but Avala's, er, point is well taken. I see nothing to suggest why this article isn't viable and encyclopedic. It also has potential for expansion into, perhaps, discussion of activities, accomplishments, etc. I might recommend removing the redlinks for now. I'm not against them, but on lists like this I do sometimes find them to be a bit of an AFD magnet as it suggests the topic itself isn't notable. If there is a strong feeling that ambassadorial list articles shouldn't be allowed, then I recommend interested parties seek a policy change similar to that pursued by those opposed to articles on TV episodes, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only if Avala stops trying so hard to make his point . Ambassadors are inherently notable.  As Carlossuarez46 points out, "obscure" does not mean "non-notable". Klausness (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (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.