Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Kryukov (2nd nomination)

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 WP:SOFTDELETE. This has gone on more than long enough. I see merit in the arguments to delete, and the article sourcing certainly doesn't show significant coverage of the subject. Due to the time elapsed to the article with no improvements, I am treating this like a WP:PROD. The article may be restored, if desired, by requesting at WP:REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Kryukov

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

Ambassadors are not notable per se. This one is not an exception. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the last AfD produced a ridiculous argument, both countries are notable, therefore ambassadors are notable. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there is not even a Russian language version of this article. LibStar (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An ambassador of one of the most important countries in the world should certainly be considered notable, despite the efforts of some to claim they should not be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please refer to how an actual notability guideline is met. I also presume you searched for in depth coverage but could find none to establish WP:BIO is met LibStar (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar. It is a truism that Ambassadors are not presumed notable. Many such ministers do pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, or can become notable for multiple postings. I don't see such factors here. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 5 November 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, Dea db eef 06:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is this the same person? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is usually worth it to have articles about ambassadors. Passes notability. Noteswork (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't demonstrated how it meets notability guidelines. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 15 November 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 15:29, 22 November 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.