Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

is there a need for a list when only 1 person has held the post? secondly we have very few list of ambassador articles, so I question the need for a list of Consuls-General who are lower ranked diplomats. Also nominating : LibStar (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * List of Consuls-General of Australia in Makassar
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unless a way to Merge and redirect is found. After looking through some consuls-general related pages, I have not found any pages to merge this one into Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete both Not-very-high-ranking or significant diplomatic posts. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clare. (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep both The scope of a Consulate General is definitely international, and it is certainly notable, this has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Further, if there are very few lists of ambassador articles, then that is a gap rather than a reason to keep other notable topics out. I would suggest the reason it is termed a 'list' for one person is for consistency with other similar articles. Here are some of the secondary sources covering the Chengdu Consulate General with significant depth:
 * I don't see how this coverage makes a list of Consuls-General notable. You've given coverage except one about the consulate not consul general. It's a separate discussion if the consulate is notable. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * also how can you argue keep both when you've provided zero coverage for Makassar? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * you've also attempt to canvass someone into this discussion . LibStar (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the page about canvassing it says 'In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus,' which was what my aim was. Here's coverage for Makassar as requested:

Clare. (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Again this is coverage about the office of the consulate not coverage where the person who is consul general is the subject LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Throwing accusations about canvassing isn't helpful, especially given that I'm the author of the Chengdu page (I.E. an 'Editor who has made substantial edits to the topic or article') and I had no notification of its deletion until Clare notified me. I see the problem being solved by moving of these pages to a title that focuses on the consulate itself, rather than merely the office-holders, with a bit more info on its functions thrown in; say to Australian Consulate-General, Makassar/Chengdu? This has been done here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep both I agree with above. There is clear notability and modern diplomacy often means that most consuls-general have many delegated and policy roles that would normally be the sole responsibility of an ambassador. These posts fulfil this role. If deletion is approved, perhaps a single page listing various Australian consuls-general (like I did with the special interests abassadors and envoys) could be a possible compromise. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is presuming ambassadors are inherently notable which they are not. And consul generals even less so. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * consuls do not have sole responsibility of roles assigned to ambassadors unless no ambassador exists in that country. The ambassador always retains full responsibility.  In this case,  there are ambassadors in China and Indonesia.  LibStar (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps a merge of certain material into the ambassador pages (i.e. for china and indonesia ambassadors) is a better compromise? Not notable enough for their own page, perhaps, but enough to warrant inclusions in a page dealing with the closest subject.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames   let's talk about it  00:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Ludicrous lists given the number of entries and questionable notability of the individuals. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:LIST in so many ways. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - seriously? Both of these roles have only been held by a single person, so what's the need for a list here? I agree that an article on this could eventually be useful, but it's WP:TOOSOON for that. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  09:33, 11 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.