Deletion of Mustafa Tajouri

Comment: in the interests of fighting |systematic bias. The Diplomat magazine link which you provided is exactly one of those publications which I am going to be using to source a lot of info for ambassadors and missions to Russia, it is published by a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, so information contained therein is reliable and verifiable. To search for Russian and English names is one thing, but as Tajouri is Libyan, there is likely to be more information on him available in Arabic, and said information may not be found online. Additionally, to be a Colonel in the Libyan military and then a teacher at various military colleges in Libya, and then being posted as the ambassador to one of the most important posts in terms of Libya's foreign relations, Tajouri is likely to be more than notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: I'm confused. All you've proven is that he is an ambassador to Russia, was formerly a Colonel in the Lybian military, and taught in Lybian military colleges. How does this necessarily pass  and ? &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:DIPLOMAT)

Comment: I believe the subject ''is'' an ambassador to Russia, but I don't agree that alone is enough to establish notability. A http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22%D0%9C%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B0+%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%94%D0%96%D0%A3%D0%A0%D0%98%22&btnG=Search Google search for his name in Cyrillic gives precisely one hit, while http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Mustafa+Tajouri%22&btnG=Search another search for his English name provides three non-Wikipedia hits. The one and only website that deals specifically with this him, http://www.diplomatrus.com/article.php?id=941&l=eng here, is an autobiography styling itself as an interview. And going from that information, I again question his notability, this apparently having been his first diplomatic post, and his otherwise having been in the Lybian military. Searching LexisNexis, I found a single mention on a newswire from January 24, 2008 about a discussion with a Russian official. All this in mind, I genuinely do not believe this article passes  or , unless you can |prove otherwise.&mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:DIPLOMAT||WP:PROVEIT)

Comment: I disagree. Firstly, |the burden of evidence lies on the editor ''contributing'' content. It moreover says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". I can find ''no'' "reliable, third-party sources" that establish notability for this topic, either by the general criteria in  or the specific criteria of . I can't agree with a blanket acceptance of the notability of every ambassador article. I understand that there has been Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 7#Ambassadors|relatively recent discussion on the notability of ambassadors, but until such time that it is officially adopted into guidelines, I would consider it premature to assume this subject's notability. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN||WP:BIO||WP:DIPLOMAT)

Comment: Again, |the burden of proof is on the contributor adding content. Why would you create an article if you can't prove the subject is notable? &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN)