Deletion of List of Australian Ambassadors to Iran

Comment: Wikipedia is NOT... what? To the nominator: If you're citing  as a reason for deletion, please at least let us know which specific aspect of  you are alluding to. Or did you mean ABILITY
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: I've noticed a trend I find disturbing of nominating almost any and every list on wikipedia for deletion.  I see several arguments, from those wanting to delete the lists, that are fallacious and yet persistent.  First, I gently encourage anyone who thinks this (and other lists on AFD, for that matter) is "indiscriminate" to actually go to wiktionary and look up the definition of the word.  A muddled understanding of this word -- the notion that it refers to lists of minor importance or something -- is leading to a lot of unnecessary deletions.  Second, I've seen numerous suggestions that if every item (or most) on a list does not contain a blue link, the list is invalid.  This isn't the point of lists.   explicitly states that lists can be used to develop articles that have not been written.  But lists are also important that simply record chronology, etc.  This list imparts useful, verifiable, notable information.  The fact that the links are all red is completely irrelevant and should not be cited as a criteria for deletion.  Many problematic lists will have red links, but this is not a valid reason to delete ''all'' lists that have red links
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)