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)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu[edit]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu (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)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clare. (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
also how can you argue keep both when you've provided zero coverage for Makassar? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you've also attempt to canvass someone into this discussion [1]. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:44, 1 May 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.
More