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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hussain Sikder[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage merely confirms he held the roles and nothing else LibStar (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ambassador of any country to Russia, one of the most important countries in the world, is notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

still what did he actually contribute as ambassador? We do not give free notability passes simply because they've been ambassador to Russia. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. Australia's most recent ambassador to Russia [1] is a not very highly ranked career public servant, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Diplomats who have made a meaningful and verifiable contribution to events of diplomatic importance (wars, treaties, trade negotiations, etc.) will have been written about in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Extensive searches uncovered nothing more than brief government announcements each time Sikder presented his credentials upon taking up a new position. These are not arms-length secondary sources and do not satisfy WP:BASIC.

The essay WP:DIPLOMAT confirms that an ambassadorship does not automatically confer notability upon the holder. Russia is an important country. That does not mean that Russia-Bangladesh relations between 2005 and 2008 are therefore notable, let alone that Sikder inherits notability from Russia.

An appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE tacitly admits that the article violates the notability guidelines, and the guidelines reflect consensus, but argues that Wikipedia is nonetheless made better by having the article. Such a position is hardly surprising from an editor who has written "Ambassadors and equivalent ranking diplomats should be presumed notable ... I have long argued this."[2]

On the contrary, articles like this are harmful to Wikipedia. They give editors the impression that articles don't really need arms-length reliable sources, that a press release from any country (or company, or musician, or creative professional, etc.) automatically makes the subject eligible for an encyclopedia article. We require multiple independent sources so that a balanced article that complies with WP:NPOV can be written, instead of an article that just repeats the official government line (which is hardly likely to describe an ambassador warts-and-all). Worldbruce (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well said Worldbruce. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per Worldbruce. A Google search didn't turn up any in-depth coverage. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I understand Necrothesp's position, and usually find myself in agreement with their reasoning, this time I'll have to disagree. While certain levels of performance are given automatic notability (the quickest example that comes to mind is Olympic athletes), I don't think ambassadorships are a category Wikipedia would want to have auto notability. The reason is that so often appointment of ambassadors has nothing to do with achievement or ability, but quite frankly is due to political paybacks and cronyism. Without the auto notability, as other editors have pointed out, this particular ambassador fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for a long time Necrothesp argued inherent notability of ambassadors he gave that up when community consensus showed it not true. Now he tries the angle of they are an ambassador to a large country they must be notable! I've never seen him actually find sources to demonstrate an ambassador under AfD is notable. That is the best way to argue keep which again is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2015 (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.