Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogério Araújo Adolfo Helbert


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rogério Araújo Adolfo Helbert

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

Non-notable diplomat per WP:DIPLOMAT: Drawn Some (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.
 * 2) Although diplomats often participate in issues of significant diplomatic importance without receiving specific individual coverage, sufficient reliable documentation of their role is required.


 * Delete Agreed, this person doesn't seem that notable.  Adn the article is poorly referenced.   Æon  Insanity Now!  04:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of new information, was not aware of the pervious AfD which I have just reviewed. Thanks for pointing that out.  Æon  Insanity Now!  01:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In previous AfD, it has been determined that ambassadors to Russia are going to be inherently notable. --Russavia Dialogue 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Russavia. KNewman (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note The name of the diplomat was spelled incorrectly, it should have been Rogério Araújo Adolfo Herbert. --Russavia Dialogue 03:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -another bad faith nomination.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -'longest-serving Ambassador in Moscow' speaks for itself.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This sort of deletion nomination really makes me despair for the future of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. The concept of notability, as a stricter standard than verifiabily, no original research and neutral point of view, was introduced as a way to keep out vanity biographies and pop-trivia, not the sort of serious coverage of history and world affairs that obviously belongs in an encyclopedia. Let's forget about any lawyering and consider whether Wikipedia is better as an encyclopedia with or without this verifiable article. I can't think of any way that deleting this could be thought to improve the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2009 (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.