Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Tajouri


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Tajouri

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

Contested PROD; I feel this subject fails WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:BIO. There is very little significant information available, none of which is independent of the subject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – (a) it seems likely that we can establish that he is the Ambassador of Libya to Russia; (b) the Ambassador of Foo to Russia must be notable per se (WP:DIPLOMAT is very brief); given (a) and (b) non-controversial non-independent info can be used. (I would argue that the Ambassador of Foo to Bar is notable per se; there will surely be copious material published in Foo and Bar about this ambassador, not necessarily in English, not necessarily available to google.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. Firstly, the burden of evidence lies on the editor contributing content. It moreover says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". I can find no "reliable, third-party sources" that establish notability for this topic, either by the general criteria in WP:BIO or the specific criteria of WP:DIPLOMAT. I can't agree with a blanket acceptance of the notability of every ambassador article. I understand that there has been relatively recent discussion on the notability of ambassadors, but until such time that it is officially adopted into guidelines, I would consider it premature to assume this subject's notability. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The contributing editor has provided evidence that the guy is the ambassador to Russia, and doubtless assumed (quite reasonably, in my view, Russia being a G8 country) that he is therefore notable. Googling on '+Мустафа +ТАДЖУРИ' gives quite a few results, and no doubt the arabic equivalent (at which I cannot guess) would give some more. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe the subject is an ambassador to Russia, but I don't agree that alone is enough to establish notability. A Google search for his name in Cyrillic gives precisely one hit, while another search for his English name provides three non-Wikipedia hits. The one and only website that deals specifically with this him, here, is an autobiography styling itself as an interview. And going from that information, I again question his notability, this apparently having been his first diplomatic post, and his otherwise having been in the Lybian military. Searching LexisNexis, I found a single mention on a newswire from January 24, 2008 about a discussion with a Russian official. All this in mind, I genuinely do not believe this article passes WP:BIO or WP:DIPLOMAT, unless you can prove otherwise.&mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep in the interests of fighting systematic bias. The Diplomat magazine link which you provided is exactly one of those publications which I am going to be using to source a lot of info for ambassadors and missions to Russia, it is published by a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, so information contained therein is reliable and verifiable. To search for Russian and English names is one thing, but as Tajouri is Libyan, there is likely to be more information on him available in Arabic, and said information may not be found online. Additionally, to be a Colonel in the Libyan military and then a teacher at various military colleges in Libya, and then being posted as the ambassador to one of the most important posts in terms of Libya's foreign relations, Tajouri is likely to be more than notable. --Россавиа Диалог 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment Additionally, if searching in Russian, please don't wrap in " as this means you are looking for that exact term, whereas, this search turns up plenty of results. --Россавиа Диалог 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a little disconcerting to see that the above google search includes my comment of a few hours ago. I agree with all your points and also those of Matt91486 below. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, I wouldn't call 33 hits "plenty". Secondly, of course there are more hits; "Мустафа" (Mustafa) is a common given name, while "Таджури"(Tajouri) is not an exclusive surname. With an unquoted string, the only requirement for a search is that the two terms appear in the same page, not in the same sentence or phrase. It's very likely that most of those additional hits your query string returns are completely unrelated to the subject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The google search I suggested above (on '+Мустафа +ТАДЖУРИ') gets 60 hits thus (with omitted results included). Most of these are on Мустафа Мифтах Тахер Таджури or Мустафа М. Т. Таджури. As the guy has only been in Russia since Jan 2007 this seems a fair total. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason Google omits results is because they are duplicate hits. Ghits on their own do not denote notability, and while lack thereof does not indicate non-notability on its own, the burden of proof is on the contributor adding content. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And yet, you clearly used the lack of google hits in Russian and English as part of your argument above to delete this article, when it is clear that most sources dealing with article subject would be in Arabic. Not speaking Arabic, I can't find such sources. --Россавиа Диалог 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, the burden of proof is on the contributor adding content. Why would you create an article if you can't prove the subject is notable? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And the burden has been met by at least one article in English language which is independent of the subject and devoted to the subject and his mission. --Россавиа Диалог 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused. All you've proven is that he is an ambassador to Russia, was formerly a Colonel in the Lybian military, and taught in Lybian military colleges. How does this necessarily pass WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think if this were the minister of an English-speaking country to Russia, this wouldn't even be nominated, in all likelihood. Especially considering some of the historical international problems between the (then) Soviet Union and Libya, I'd say this isn't a minor posting for the Libyan government. matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to People's Bureau of Libya in Moscow Ambassadors are not inherently notable.  In many countries ambassadorships are given as political graft.  When, however, the ambassador is also a notable person the embassy and news play this up.  There's no such information coming out of Libya suggesting any other notability about this diplomat.  However, Mendaliv's "feelings" aside, ambassadors in general belong in Wikipedia, as international relations are covered extensively in the news.  Some ambassadors should be in their missions, however, not in their own articles, this being one such case.  --Blechnic (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - in interest of fighting systematic bias, and based on roundhouse's reasoning and his and others' search for (russian) refs. There's enough in the article for a small, but useful stub. Here's a pic of him which I didn't see on results listed above. Nothing to do with him, but I wonder which are the countries which don't grant ambassadorships as political graft. :-)John Z (talk) 22:05, 11 July 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.