Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to Australia–Norway relations. ansh 666 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. Australia has never had a resident ambassador to Norway. Article contains mostly primary sources. The few third party sources like Canberra Times merely contain routine coverage which confirm the role. If we started creating lists of non resident ambassadors we'd have thousands of articles.. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT on non-resident ambassadors; does not meet WP:LISTN. Way too indiscriminate to be in compliance with WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update to redirect to Australia–Norway relations as per the discussion below. A redirect would allow n interested editro to pick up anything useful from the article history, if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge and redirect. I do not see the problem.  The vast majority of lists only contain WP:EXISTS material or very basic information.  So does this one. And, it does fill the information gap (otherwise) if you a trying to find such for Australia and Norway. WP:LISTN does say Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.  If it not kept then an ideal merge and redirect target I suggest is Australia–Norway relations where it would fit straight in with minimal rework.  Whether or not the article is kept, the content is useful and encyclopedic and should be kept.  Aoziwe (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you can't sit on the fence. please select one of keep OR merge. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am definitely on the keep content side of the fence, which is why I put Keep first. To facilitate a consensus I am prepared to fall back to a Merge and Redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the list is useful and the sources of course merely confirm the role as there is no further information required to verify the information in the article. Also; I see no problem with having thousands of articles, if they contain information with value to users like I believe this one does. Clare. (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL explains that such an argument is not necessarily persuasive but that, supplemented by other opinion, it may be valid. In rhis case I find the argument persuasive and I'm sorry that the nominator does not. Thincat (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful, well-cited, encyclopedic list. There are list articles on the Australian ambassadors to all other countries (see the template at the bottom of the article), so there would be no reason to delete this one as it would only have to be recreated. SunChaser (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, it's important to note that the template doesn't contain links to articles on Australian ambassadors to "all other countries" by a long margin, and some of these in fact redirect to articles on the bilaterial relations, rather than simply being links to lists of ambassadors. Saying that an article "would only have to be recreated" rather misses the point of it being deleted if consensus is found to do so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete with a possible redirect to an article on bilateral relations between the two countries (not an endorsement of there necessarily being such an article, but it would be a logical redirect if one exists). Given that the ambassador is a non-resident one, I don't see any particular need for this list to stand separately from any article on Australia-Norway relations. Misstatements by other editors demonstrate that there are fewer arguments against deletion than might otherwise appear. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Australia–Norway relations. As non-resident representatives, this particular office is clearly not important enough for its own article, and the articles cited are simply WP:ROUTINE stuff that doesn't indicate that the office has much significance.  A merge will preserve the useful information and give some depth to the resulting article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Merge. As a non-resident ambassador, a standalone list is likely too much, but it would fit within the relations article, which is short anyway. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (pronounce)  21:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think a list of the foremost representatives of one sovereign nation state to another sovereign nation state is significant enough regardless of the notability of the relations between those two countries. South Nashua (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you're arguing inherent notability when there isn't any. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's hard to imagine any ambassador of any sovereign nation not meeting GNG, why would a list of them not be notable? South Nashua (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

wrong again. many many ambassador articles have been deleted as shown in this list granting zero inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In most of those discussions, there was almost no input. Even if "ambassadors were not inherently notable" as a policy, Wikipedia polices can and do change over time as needed South Nashua (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

wrong again. if there was little input they would be closed as no consensus. You're somehow trying to spin that a delete outcome is invalid and that can indeed mean inherent notability. Community consensus is clear that there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This has not changed. You're just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence or outcomes from 50+ AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree. South Nashua (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Australia–Norway relations. "Topic" doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. Yilloslime T C  16:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Question to those supporting merge is "List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway" really a viable search term? LibStar (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What else would you use if you wanted to find the Australian Ambassadors to Norway? And is that more a question of the redirect rather than the merge? Aoziwe (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 01:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- We already have List of Australian Ambassadors to... lists for pretty much every other country they have relations with (including some that are very small). I don't see the issue here.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS being a bad argument, it also doesn't hold water here. Looking at the articles linked from the template, the overwhelming majority of those there are resident ambassadors. The only non-residents are Algeria, Hungary (resident until 2013), Switzerland and Venezuela (resident until 2002), as well as the special case of the Holy See. The question realistically would seem to be what makes those 4-5 countries so special as to mandate their non-resident ambassadors having lists, rather than simply being merged into the articles on the countries in which they ambassadors are already resident. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The nominator has made a really good argument by saying that article has only primary sources and Australia lacks a resident ambassador to Norway. And another option is Merge with Australia–Norway relations. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. even if it is considered that not all  individual  ambassadors are notable enough for separate articles, a list of them is a good way of handling the material for the others. It's one of the suggested methods of dealing with less0than-notable material at WP:GNG.  DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * that's hardly an argument for keep if the list contains non notable entities. Secondly, the list fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG, that may lead others to create ambassadors article about any country even if there is only one ambassador. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Australia–Norway relations. These aren't resident ambassadors, a mention that the ambassador to Denmark (and formerly Sweden) serves as ambassador to Norway is sufficient.  The references are all WP:MILL diplomatic announcements and don't suggest that the position is independently notable. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:57, 11 December 2017 (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.