Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghassan El Khatib

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan El Khatib

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As community consensus has shown, ambassadors are not inherently notable. The first source is a directory listing, the other 2 are dead. The 2 google news hits are small mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While ambassadors may not be inherently notable, they are presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. If you wish to contest this, either explain why it would not apply to ambassadors, or make an RfC to seek community consensus to have it changed. Most definitions of what a politician is would apply to ambassadors, who hold a national position. Additionally, the dead link indicates coverage. – Ike Lek (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is very clear, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaira Hasan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Yahya Alkharejah. But you keep insisting there is inherent notability when no one agrees with you. Where is your consensus? LibStar (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My consensus is WP:NPOL, specifically this revision [1], which is a higher level of consensus than AfD. Bringing up previous AfDs is a very "other stuff doesn't exist" argument.

Also, I very clearly specified that I was not claiming inherent notability, so I would appreciate if you struck that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
inherent, presumed notability...same thing. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Very much not the same thing. Ike Lek (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfDs (especially recent ones) are highly relevant as they show community consensus. You even said consensus can change, yes it can, but not evidenced in recent AfDs. You even tried an unsuccessful deletion review to desperately salvage your viewpoint on inherent/presumed notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advice you to read WP:CONLEVEL. If you believe there is consensus against the current wording of policy, then RfC is the way to address that. Ike Lek (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated here "If you want to debate notability standards, I advise you to bring it to a policy talk page where other editors who are interested in the subject matter can weigh in. Editors interested in developing policies and guidelines are unlikely to see an AFD discussion." LibStar (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referencing a policy. You are referencing one editor's statement. Ike Lek (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that supports my claim anyway. If you want to change policy, you should take it to RfC or the talk page. You are the one proposing a change and claiming that AfDs establish consensus for developing policies. I don't know why you would quote that, as it supports the notion that your previous AfDs do not impact consensus on policy. Ike Lek (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no presumed notability for ambassadors, no matter how hard you try to wpin it or use deletion reviews to overturn delete decisions determined through consensus. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors do not have presumed notability and the subject fails GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Note that ambassadors are not presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL - I question the attempt to sneak in a novel policy interpretation, and don't even understand the reasoning. Here is NPOL bit by bit:

Politicians and judges Ambassadors are neither politicians nor judges as such. Some are, many are not.

who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office Ambassadorship is not a political office.

or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Of course, they have not done ethis either.

This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. They are not elected to offices.

Major local political figures They are not local political figures.

who have received significant press coverage. Some have, many have not.

Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how you claim ambassadors don't hold a political office. Ambassadors are absolutely politicians by nature of holding a political office. Can you cite a definition of politician that would exclude ambassadors? Ike Lek (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Geschichte's analysis of ambassador notability, and am slightly confused as to why @Ike Lek is citing a specific revision of WP:NPOL from 2015 containing since-removed ambassador specific material to support their assertion of consensus, while also referencing current wording of policy when discussing WP:CONLEVEL. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing when consensus was achieved that ambassadors are not excluded from WP:NPOL, and then making a WP:CONLEVEL argument for past AfDs not being able to establish a consensus overruling a policy. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Geschichte's analysis of NPOL and a lack of sources for GNG. Politicians participate in policy-making processes which is not true for most diplomats and ambassadors. Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors have no standing of presumed notability at NPOL. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, how can the consensus be any "clearer". Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fought hard against the development of the consensus that ambassadors are not notable. I lost. We must be consistent. Read the news, folks. This person lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2025 (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.