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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasjim Djalal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:DIPLOMAT Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think every diplomat is inherently notable either; I just seem to remember that past discussions on ambassadors demonstrated a consensus that the ambassador of one country to another (so, not any member of embassy staff) was notable, and in this particular case the coverage in reliable sources, joined with notability from his position, seems to support an article. (Recall that WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ACADEMIC, etc. do not exclude WP:BIO). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my mind. The text of the article doesn't give grounds for keeping, but the sources have lots of detail on his contributions to Indonesia's international relations and maritime law. So I think we have an editing/improvement issue rather than a notability problem. Tigerboy1966  01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
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.