Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Consulate General in Chennai


 * 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   no consensus. Nakon 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Australian Consulate General in Chennai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. all the coverage in the article is routine LibStar (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them.  Pax 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all of them . Howard61313 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * please provide reasoning. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG, which has nothing to say about routine coverage. This consulate being in India, I think it is reasonable to infer that there may be offline undigitised sources that cannot be found with Google (NRVE). ORG is not clearly relevant as the word "consulate" is quite capable of referring to a building (see eg Harrap's Essential English Dictionary, 1996, p 199), in this case the room or rooms on the 9th Floor of Express Chambers, Express Avenue, 49, 50L Whites Road, Royapettah. Moreover, a public office held by one person at a time (such as consul general) is not an organisation for the purposes of that guideline, which requires, in all cases, "a group of more than one person". Even if this wasn't notable, I would expect it to be merged into, and redirected to, an article on relations between the two countries, not deleted. James500 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it fails WP:GNG regardless. You haven't actually supplied any sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. perhaps the fact you haven't, actually means you've proved it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) NRVE says that as long as sources exist, or are likely to exist, they need not be cited. (2) The sources are already in the article. James500 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the word "consulate" was referring to the building, the entire article is off the mark. If the article is about both the consulate-building and the consulate-diplomatic activity, it ought to be splitted.
 * I could see an argument that diplomatic missions should not be covered by WP:ORG, but this one is ludicrous to say the least... Tigraan (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It need not be split. An article about a building should include the history of that building, and that history includes all the human activity that takes place there. And a building is often notable for its history. N does say that we can have an article whose topic is two or more related subjects. James500 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Either the building is notable on his own, because of its history and what happened within his walls including, but not limited to, the diplomatic activity for which it is known as "consulate"; or it is considered exclusively in relation to the fact diplomatic activity takes place between its walls. If it is the latter, I cannot see how it can escape ORG on the basis that the article deals (partly) with the building. If it is the former, then the topic is not the Australian Consulate but the 9th Floor of Express Chambers, and needs a huge rewrite.
 * Moreover, WP:CONSPLIT gives the specific example of coffea (plant) vs. coffee (consumption good) as a legitimate split, and I doubt anyone would ever dispute that building vs activity is a legitimate split if it weren't for the fact there is a single word that covers both meanings. If either of the two is not notable for a stand-alone article, then it should only be treated in the other's article, where guidelines relative to that "other" apply. Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable, redirect is useless (long title), and there is nothing to merge.
 * By the way, from Notability (aka GNG):
 * Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.
 * Although it is about events, anything that happens to object X (where X could be a consulate) and would have been covered pretty much the same if it happened to any other similar object Y is an event that does not make X notable (it could make "event about X" notable, at best). Tigraan (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That section of N is headed "Events". Whatever a consulate general is, it is not an event. I cannot regard that section as relevant. James500 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read again what I wrote just below the quote, where I explain why it has relevance to non-event subjects. Although it is not written as such in the guidelines, I find it pretty clear that's their spirit. If you disagree, please provide an argument. Tigraan (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument is that your "explanation" above simply makes no sense to me at all. I don't see how that follows from the wording of the guideline. I don't see how that could be the spirit of the guideline. The events that have happened "to" an object don't need to be independently notable for the object to be notable. And I can't see any reason why they should, especially where there are multiple events. James500 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage of events should not bring any notability whatsoever, either to the event itself or to the interested parties, that is my point. If it did, then all consulates, embassies, diplomatic organs and everything else that issues press reports on the behalf of a sovereign state would be notable, since those press reports are sometimes picked by the press. That sounds very unreasonable to me.
 * Moreover (emphasis mine)
 * (...)it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example (...) tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. (...) In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.
 * If the strictly-event view were to be adhered to, then the tabloid restriction would apply to the article Some star nose-picking incident, but not to a Some star article where notability depends on the nose-picking incident. I think this would be an incredibly narrow view of the guidelines and certainly not the one it was intended for.
 * I agree that if there were multiple events that go only a little over routine coverage, the number can make up for the quality, but routine coverage is routine precisely because it happens regularly. Which brings us back to the original point: where is the GNG material? Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: The two !votes following the nomination do not provide rationales qualifying their respective stances. North America1000 04:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 4 April 2015 (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.