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


 * 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. joe deckertalk 18:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Los Angeles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. as many similar AfDs have been recently deleted there is no inherent notability. Someone commented this is just a cookie cutter series the opening line with a significant error just proves this " The Australian Consul-General in New York represents the Australian Government in Los Angeles". the article is based solely on primary sources. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES or WP:ADHOM arguments. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the line for inclusion should be Ambassador. Consul-General is a subordinate post and shouldn't be taken as notable per se.  There should be specific reasons for CGs to be considered notable and a list of them shouldn't meet the standard for inclusion. MLA (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing convincing for its own listed article, best mentioned at the other complete and entire list. SwisterTwister   talk  05:57, 1 July 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.