Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahendr Dosieah


 * 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   delete. slakr \ talk / 05:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahendr Dosieah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could find no indepth coverage, coverage merely confirms he is an ambassador LibStar (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn. Spumuq (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ambassador to one of the world's major countries. Many of us consider ambassadors, especially those to and from major countries, to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * have you even searched for indepth coverage to establish notability? Rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You know very well that you and I disagree over this issue, so responding in the same way every time I post my opinion in an AfD is really not constructive. In my opinion he is notable by virtue of his position. Period. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence that he is notable? Spumuq (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is evidence he holds the position. And the position is the evidence of his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no notability criterion giving ambassadors inherent notability like say an Olympic athlete so using the by virtue of his position argument carries zero weight, how about actually looking for sources to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As usual, you're getting upset about other editors disagreeing with you and shouting about opinions having no weight on AfDs, which is utter and complete rubbish, as a look at any AfD will tell you. Wikipedia is not about dogma and rules. It's about getting a consensus through discussion. I have put my opinion. You have put yours. Leave other editors to put theirs and try to control this tendency you have to try to shout others down and rubbish their opinions if they conflict with your own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In the time spent arguing here you could have done a search for sources. I presume you have searched and found nothing in depth. If you are serious about ambassadors being inherently notable put up a proposal at WP:BIO and gain proper consensus. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rules, rules, we must have rules, everything must be governed by rules...sigh! Luckily, that's not what Wikipedia's all about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - ambassadors are not inherently notable and are held the same standard as every other subject here. We require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are a handful of editors who believe that ambassadors should be notable by default, mere appointment being sufficient. It's a valid opinion but not the prevailing one. I, too, would rather see the question resolved than have to deal with these on a case-by-case basis, but as with diplomati-spam embassy articles, these pop up like weeds. There are dozens and dozens of genuinely notable diplomats with acres and acres of coverage who wouldn't need some special notability guideline conferring inherent notability and yet we don't have articles here for them. The US ambassador to Australia is a f**king rock star - his sweaters get nationwide coverage down here (I kid you not). The truly notable ones don't need any form of special consideration.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and . I do find it interesting that our guidelines explicitly do not cover ambassadors in WP:NPOL, but there is also not a separate guideline for them. Given that though, we need to go with BIO or GNG, and there are not sources to meet those requirements. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2014 (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.