Deletion of John Banks Elliott

Comment: The article can be of importance just that there is little online sources to cite. I recommend it's kept and before that the original research contents need to be rectified. Also I see {{ping|Dorothyelliott}}'s username and article's name both with '''Elliott''' to be . What do you say {{ping|Dorothyelliott
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: ambassadors (even to or from major nations) are not inherently notable. A cogent argument has been put forward in a range of WP forums that ambassadors from major countries to major countries are ''very likely'' to be notable and I agree with that sentiment. But articles are still judged on a case-by-case basis. I'd be comfortable with a merge of anything relevant but we still don't have sources to suggest that this would be a significant ambassadorship that requires significant coverage in that article per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: more or less per DGG and .  First, I think there is a direct argument that BASIC has been shown here. I think the Miller source and the CAIRN source (later removed) both are in-depth, third-party, reliable sources. I recognize that "in-depth" is subjective, however, and the rest of my argument will proceed allowing that people can have different views on that bar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)