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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulat Abdullayev

[edit]

This Russian diplomat fails WP:DIPLOMAT - his role in events is not discussed in sources, and there are almost no reliable secondary sources that even mention him. Fences and windows (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did someone check in Cyrillic alphabet/Russian language? Drawn Some (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked and all I find are similar pages to those in English - mini-biogs listing his diplomatic postings. Someone else should look too though. Fences and windows (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are ambassadors fairly notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My understanding is that WP:DIPLOMAT pertains more to non-ambassador diplomats-- there many be many career officers who never become ambassador, but who might be involved in many important events. Ambassadors are probably more like WP:POLITICIAN. Note, for example, Mary M. Ourisman. Avram (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ambassador does not hold a political office. They are a diplomat. The existence of another page about a non-notable diplomat isn't a good reason to keep this one. Fences and windows (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it may vary some by country, but at least in the United States ambassadors are political appointees, confirmed by the Senate. Avram (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fences and windows since the article makes no claim of importance or significance and a Russian language search was performed. Drawn Some (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page updated. I have updated the page with more sources, mainly more reliable sources that confirm his role as ambassador, but also one that shows his role in working with international organizations. The decision of whether to keep this article will probably come down to whether the "importance" (whatever that means) of the country matters for deciding if ambassadors are notable-- it seems that reasonable people can differ on that. I have trouble seeing how this case differs from the (clearly notable) case of John R. Beyrle, or indeed most of the ambassador articles for U.S. ambassadors, which seem to, as a rule, be considered notable. Avram (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors, rep[resenting the top of their profession, are notable, as for other professions. The question is whether this also holds for mio=nor nations, and it certainly holds for the representative to or from a major nation like him. From one minor nation to another, I think they;d still be notable, but I wouldn't be quite as sure of it. DGG (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am keeping my delete even though he has been an ambassador. It is still WP:DIPLOMAT that applies, not WP:POLITICIAN, ambassadors are diplomats just as poodles are dogs. Based on the updated information he is still not notable. With 200 countries there could be 4,000 ambassadors, although there aren't that many, and there is nothing anywhere to indicate that they are inherently notable and that WP:DIPLOMAT can be ignored. To try to do otherwise is ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, and I find it very disturbing. Drawn Some (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors from major countries such as Russia are going to be inherrently notable, whilst Ambassadors from Mali are likely going to be harder to make notable. Sorry, but it's the way of the world; Russia being a world power, and a member of the UNSC, etc is going to have a higher profile. Abdullayev has written books unders pseudonyms, and I have included one of those which I have found, and has also been a member of influential Russian think tanks and the like. The guy is notable --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:05, 18 May 2009 (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.