Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian High Commissioners to Kiribati


 * 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. Some of the keep !votes assert notability, but do not specifically or directly cite Wikipedia guidelines and policies to qualify the assertion. However, this does not necessarily make other points in the rationales for retention invalid. Ultimately, there is no consensus for a particular action to be carried out. Also of note is that a suggestion exists herein for a new article named Australia–Kiribati relations to be created, with content of this article moved to the new article. This proposal was was endorsed by another user in the discussion. Further discussion about this possiblity can continue on the article's talk page. North America1000 00:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Australian High Commissioners to Kiribati

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. the sources mostly primary merely confirm there have been ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list of people to hold the highest diplomatic foreign office representing one of Kiribati's more important international relationships is plainly notable, and our coverage of international relations in the Pacific (a much, much covered topic in academic sources, and something on which we need a lot more of, not less) would be a lot worse were these to be deleted. These nominations are increasingly seeming more and more like a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, seeing as after failing to get consensus in earlier bids LibStar is now escalating to nominating more important diplomatic positions. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * refer WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for comments after cleanup and sources have been added Nakon  04:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is more than notable given that the Australian mission in Kiribati is one of the very few in the island nation. The nominator appears to be having an issue with WP:POINT, I would agree with them if there were many pages about non-notable individual ambassadors. But there aren't, this is a list and it doesn't automatically follow that it isn't notable enough to recommend deletion.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now cleaned this page up, adding and referencing extra details and info. I don't see why this should not remove the deletion nomination now.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  04:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is encyclopedic. The High Commissioner has ambassadorial rank in a Commonwealth nation. Aren't ambassadors presumptively notable, or am I missing something? The sourcing is an issue, because there's hardly any press coverage on the holders of this office. But really? I am inclined to break the rules on this; I think we need a formal guideline on ambassadors. MisterRandomized (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ambassadors are not inherently notable. There have been previous attempts to create a guideline that have failed. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, so you keep saying, and for individual ambassadors i agree. But the importance of this post, both for Kiribati and AusAID, has been established. Rather than rehashing what you've already said above, try to engage with my changes. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Because: Ambassadors are not inherently notable. None of the commissioners listed are bluelinked; If this post were particularly important to Australia, some of the diplomats who have held it would probably be bluelinked.  Moreover, Kiribati is an independent state, but, pop.  ~100,000.  With no natural resources and no industries, it is dependent on foreign aid; since much of this aid comes form Australia, I get that this post is important to Kiribati.  On the other hand, the welfare commissioner responsible for the welfare of the poorer neighborhoods of Sao Paolo or Kinshasa does not get a Wikipedia article.  Nor do we have lists of the Ambassadors posted to Fiji or Grand Fenwick.  Really, the only argument for keeping this article is the assertion that ambassadors are inherently WP notable.  They aren't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you actually looked at the article you'd see that two of the office-holders are actually bluelinked. Notability also does not depend on who it is notable for: if it is notable for Kiribati, then it is notable. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the page. Note that the blue-linked commissioners were resident in Nauru. None of the Commissioners who have served since a separate doplomat was sent to reside in Kiribati are blue-linked,  but this is a very minor point vis a vis this discussion.00:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, what is a 'welfare commissioner'? I also find it hardly helpful at all to equate actual sovereign nations like Fiji or Kiribati to a fictional nation, that's actually quite insulting. There is also in fact page for Australia's High Commissioner to Fiji here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I truly am sorry. That was snarky, and I pride myself on avoiding rudeness.  However, I stand by my point.  Kiribati is in the unfortunate position of being heavily dependent on foreign aid, this had the lamentable but unavoidable consequence of making the notionally equal relationship between two nation states effectively that of a powerful hegemon and a dependent.  I do not know to what extent the relationship between Fiji and Australia may differ, but that office appears to have a different title, rank and sphere of authority.  (plus see WP:OTHERSTUFF)  As far as this article goes, interested editors might do better to create an article on Australia–Kiribati relations, which would include the info on this page along with a history of the relationship and the nature of the current ties between the two states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposal If User:Siegfried Nugent or some other editor volunteers to create one, I would support redirecting this article to a new article on Australia–Kiribati relations. Nugent, I hope you'll do it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I endorse. I think that would allow us to save this article's content and sidestep the issue of the notability of an individual High Commissioner. I cannot imagine a good argument to contest the notability of Australia-Kiribati relations. MisterRandomized (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added additional sources. I know that the wiki guidelines do not identify ambassadors as inherently notable. Given this article's subject (appointments to this post) has been reported in media over decades, I believe the list is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I also would argue that deleting this page could be seen as an example of systemic bias, which identifies:
 * 1) a dearth of articles on neglected topics; and
 * 2) perspective bias in articles on many subjects.
 * We all have no trouble agreeing that a List of ambassadors of Australia to the United States is notable, but are less ready to accept other lists of this type. Clare. (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with clare, there is a clear indication that bias may be present here simply because Kiribati is not a large or, relative to its position, as important in certain areas as other countries. The fact that this high commission and its heads are one of only a handful of diplomatic missions in this country is a good reason for establishing notability. The Australian High Commission is important to Kiribati, and it should be notable on that basis.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2016 (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.