Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire

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. MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire

Indian Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ambassador articles do not have inherent notability. This one is full of primary sources LibStar (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. LibStar's mass attempts at deletion on articles about ambassador positions despite his poor track record at those nominations actually getting consensus is getting tiresome. This is getting to be the kind of thing that needs a topic ban. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:ADHOM. you've made zero attempt to demonstrate notability of the subject. Your comments add zero to establishing notability and are getting tiresome because you consistently make no effort to discuss the actual subject of deletion using vague WP:ADHOM or I can see sources without stating them arguments. these type of non genuine comments that do not seriously establish notability and do not discourage me but rather show you just want to oppose my nominations based on WP:ADHOM rather than any genuine good faith attempt to discuss how the article meets a specific notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been similar articles deleted like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Colombia to Russia. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - bilateral relations between members of the non-allied nations in the United Nations. See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting inherent notability. There is no such thing for bilateral relations let alone ambassador articles. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- There are around 200 sovereign nations in the world. Are we going to have 40,000 of these articles all saying nothing but "The ambassador of Derpland to Foozbleckistan performs diplomatic duties between Derpland and Foozbleckistan. He has a residence in Foozbleck City."? This article contains almost no actual content, and there is no prospect of it ever having any. There is no such thing as inherent notability, contentless microstubs degrade rather than improve the encyclopedia, and arguments of WP:IDONTLIKELIBSTAR are objectively invalid. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Reyk, Drover's Wife's comments are WP:ADHOM attacks if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While it's admirable that this person is an ambassador, there is no inherent notability as such. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that this individual passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No inherent notability and no significant coverage beyond routine mentions and statements. There are some X Ambassador to Y articles that are actually notable and can be expanded to substantial content. This is not one of them. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.