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. It's clear there is no agreement here, despite being relisted twice. Central to the "no consensus" is disagreement as to whether the coverage of appointments to this position are merely "routine coverage". This is a subjective question with significant disagreement expressed here and no indication that a further relist will add any more light to the situation. This close should not preclude a merge as suggested by some participants if a consensus can be reached on the relevant talk pages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela[edit]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. article is based on primary sources rather than third party coverage. Most of the sources are actually about another ambassador role. It's also now a non resident ambassador role and for those periods where there was an ambassador it is lacking coverage. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up, WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ADHOM will be considered inadequate keep arguments. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Addendum: and Merge into List of Australian Ambassadors to Chile into [[List of Australian Ambassadors to Chile]]) ambassadors are not automatically notable, plus the fact that the very fact that Australia has not felt the need to even have a resident ambassador in Venezuela speaks volumes about the non-notable/routine nature of the post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the scope of this role is international and it has received significant independent coverage, in the form of announcement of appointments in The Canberra Times. Further, notability is not temporary and the more recent sources are about the ambassador to Venezuela (who is also resident ambassador to Chile, etc.). Clare. (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

announcements in Canberra Times is just merely routine coverage the rest of the sources are primary sources. The most recent source makes 2 very small mentions of Venezuela . It hardly establishes notability. Notability is not temporary is irrelevant here, I'd argue this list was never notable. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me that ambassadors are important enough to a country's diplomatic efforts to appear in lists. In fact, three of the ambassadors have articles. The problem here is that the list is too narrow. Perhaps "List of Australian Ambassadors to South America"? "List of Australian Ambassadors"? "List of Australian Ambassadors Who Don't Appear in Other Lists"?  The Steve  14:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clare's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:PERNOM. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sets out my personal view as to why it should be kept. There is a reason arguing with each and every single keep voter who disagrees with you is discouraged. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin will take into account the strength of your excellent reasoning . LibStar (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, your lack of WP:CIVIL does you no credit.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

neither does Drover's ongoing personal attacks at me. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, WP:APR could be instructive here. Drover's Wife needs to stop the incivility and you need to stop feeding it.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge info. I agree with the nominator. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian Ambassadors to Chile page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little. I must admit to have had some trepidation when these pages for former embassy postings were created.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with this Delete and Merge proposal. (revised my Delete iVote above.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In general, where content can be attributed to reliable (even if primary) sources, I think it benefits the reader for us to have either an article or a list about a public office. Deryck C. 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Secondly this topic lacks significant third party coverage and hence fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but keep and rationalise content. There has been / is a whole series of these and (@Clare.:) the content is useful and encyclopedic, but I do not believe each post needs its own article. There should be some master lists, with some contextual text for each post, for example by continent ?, with redirects from the relevant titles to the master articles. @LibStar: If I may suggest this would create less dispute, and add value to wikipedia, rather than AFDing them ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.