Deletion of List of Australian High Commissioners to Kiribati

Comment: I think this is encyclopedic. The High Commissioner has ambassadorial rank in a Commonwealth nation. Aren't ambassadors presumptively notable, or am I missing something? The sourcing is an issue, because there's hardly any press coverage on the holders of this office. But really? I am inclined to |break the |rules on this; I think we need a formal guideline on ambassadors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:GNG)

Comment: The list of people to hold the highest diplomatic foreign office representing one of Kiribati's more important international relationships is plainly notable, and our coverage of international relations in the Pacific (a much, much covered topic in academic sources, and something on which we need a lot more of, not less) would be a lot worse were these to be deleted. These nominations are increasingly seeming more and more like a violation of |don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, seeing as after failing to get consensus in earlier bids LibStar is now escalating to nominating more important diplomatic positions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: This article is more than notable given that the Australian mission in Kiribati is one of the very few in the island nation. The nominator appears to be having an issue with , I would agree with them if there were many pages about non-notable individual ambassadors. But there aren't, this is a list and it doesn't automatically follow that it isn't notable enough to recommend deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)