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


 * 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. Absolutely no sources have been provided in this discussion to prove the subject's notability; even though requests for that information were made over and over again. Instead those requesting the article's retention merely stated things like "I [see sources]"paraphrasing, in response to such questions. This type of behavior is honestly not acceptable at AFD, so I'd like to remind everyone that sources must be provided by whomever is arguing for the retention of the article. This is not a vote.

Therefore, as the required notability was not established during the course of this month long discussion, the article's subject is found to not be suitable for inclusion at this time. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Mumbai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. a related discussion is here Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu. the office of the consul general would fail WP:ORG (considering that even embassies are not granted inherent notability) so I don't see how a list of consuls general is notable. Also nominating:
 * List of Consuls-General of Australia in Houston

LibStar (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG in my book. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * please explain how. I see no significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please actually show sources. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked you on 20 April to supply actual sources, your lack of response for over 2 weeks just demonstrates the subject has no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - although it isn't specific, WP:ORG does not seem to suggest to me that all diplomatic positions are inherently notable and WP:NLIST suggests that the members of a list need to show a minimum amount of notability to be on it. I can believe that List of Australian High Commissioners to India is notable, as this is the highest status diplomatic representative between the countries, but I'm struggling to believe Consul-Gemerals are. Hence it seems to follow that members of the list are not either. I see very few independent secondary WP:RS that even mention the role, never mind suggest that it is worthy of note. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the consul suggests notability. Clare. (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * where? I don't see any. Links would be appreciated. JMWt (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are links within the articles.Clare. (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those are independent secondary sources as per WP:RS. Even if they were, the coverage within them is not significant. JMWt (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure both the country's most prominent broadsheet newspaper and premier financial newspaper would be surprised to learn that a Wikipedian thinks they're not an "independent secondary source", as would one of our national broadcasters. You're adopting some interesting definitions there. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking at a different page to me, but I see three references. First two are press release from the AUS government, third is from DNA (Diligent Media Corporation Ltd). Please explain to me what you're talking about. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the Houston page. I'm discussing the subject of this AfD, the Mumbai page. JMWt (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a joint nomination of the Houston and Mumbai articles, you'd better do better than claiming the sources I mentioned aren't "independent secondary sources" unless you've decided to at least change to a keep on Houston. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about Houston, which should not be included in the AfD, I'm (correctly) discussing the named page in this AfD discussion. JMWt (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They are both named in the AfD discussion, as the nomination makes very clear. If you're a keep vote on Houston, please make that clear. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with having joint AfDs like this. Hence I'm talking about the page which is actually under discussion and am not discussing the additional page, which should have its own AfD. The issues may indeed be different.  I'm not making any statement at this stage about Houston. JMWt (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Houston page now has its own AfD. Let's stick to talking about one at a time. JMWt (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep on the proviso that it be moved to Australian Consulate-General, Mumbai. I have expressed on other pages for deletion discussions (with no response from the nominator as yet) that the case for deletion is easily removed by simply moving the page to a name that focuses on the consulate itself rather than the office-holders, and the content should reflect that also.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To me the issue is still that there is a difference between being able to show that the job is notable and being able to show that a list of people who previously did that job are notable, even if in-and-of-themselves those people are not otherwise notable. That seems to me to be an admission that this list isn't notable and so moving it to another page so it can exist (probably without much other useful information) on a notable page. JMWt (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as still questionable for better improvements overall. SwisterTwister   talk  04:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as still questionable for better improvements overall. Thincat (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing in searches to show that it passes WP:GNG, and nothing posited in this discussion to augment my searches. I understand Siegfried Nugent's point, but not sure that the consulate itself is notable, and there is no inherent notability for a consulate, if there is, please ping me with the appropriate guideline.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:48, 16 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.