Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamil Sakr

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Sakr

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. There is no inherent notability in being an ambassador (this has been discussed at WP:BIO). All I could find is one line mentions confirming his role. I would reconsider if someone can find Arabic non trivial coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to believe that ambassadors are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador. This was discussed at talk page of WP:BIO . LibStar (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no consensus was reached. Once again, as I have pointed out to you many times, opinions are perfectly valid in AfDs. I have expressed mine; you have expressed yours. As very senior members of a country's administrative service, I believe ambassadors are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

opinions should refer to how a notability criterion is met. Your own inherent notability criterion that hasn't gained community consensus doesn't really cut it. It would be like me saying in a hotel AfD , all hotels are inherently notable because I believe so. LibStar (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would be entirely within your rights to say so. It would then be up to others to agree or disagree. Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We can express any opinion we desire. We are not obliged to express them simply within the terms of established criteria. We've had this discussion before. Pointless having it again. If others agree with me then that's their right; if they don't then that's their right too. It's not up to you to act as some sort of bureaucrat telling other contributors what opinion they're allowed to express. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems you are using WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. I could turn up to any AfD and simply say I think this is or is not inherently notable based on my opinion. AfDs are discussions on how notability is met against established criteria. your best way to establish notability is to provide sources, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could indeed. And that's fair enough. AfDs are simply discussions on whether something is notable or not. Slavish following of non-existent "rules" is not necessary. As I said, it's up to the closer. I've stated my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "He has served as a diplomat since 1980 in many postings. He was first appointed by Hafez Assad in the early 1980s.", albeit unreferenced, is a good indication of notablity. Googling the name+Canada in Arabic gives quite a few hits. --Soman (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2014 (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.