Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German ministers, envoys and ambassadors to Japan


 * 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 keep. John254 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of German ministers, envoys and ambassadors to Japan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Same argument as at Articles for deletion/Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Oops-- I think you meant to nominate German Ambassadors to Japan (which I've actually seen). Please save my place in the line for the "delete" ride, then look for a cut and paste statement from me.  Mandsford 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. I added the missingg AfD2 tag, but with a wrong title. Fixed now. --Tikiwont 12:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Well, I've said all I can on Articles for deletion/Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany. Its generally the same here. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  14:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   —Fg2 10:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I fail to see the ground for deletion here:
 * 1) Not for english Wikipedia? Please remember this in an English language Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia about English topics.
 * 2) Useless? A chronological list of ambassadors can be very usefull from a historical perspective.
 * 3) Redlinks? Either these are articles that can be created, or the wikilinks can be removed.
 * 4) Boring? Thats just in the eye of the beholder.
 * 5) Categorize? This is a chronological list, which can never be categorized without losing information.
 * Comment to new voters and closing admin, I today changed the article to have better formatting, referencing and show more useful information in English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Reinoutr's arguments are made well, and there is no legitimate reason to delete it. Ambassadors can be of historical importance, and whether you like an article or not is not a reason to delete the article. --Solumeiras talk 11:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeep as above--just as rel;evant and as justified. DGG (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2007 (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.