Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Japan in Saint Petersburg

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. clear consensus; when nominated, there was minimal sourcing, but it's been added since--considering the state when nominated, I want to specifically say I do not regard it as an absurd or disruptive or even unreasonable AfD nomination. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Japan in Saint Petersburg

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

fails WP:GNG. consulates are rarely rarely notable. nothing in gnews and google merely confirms its existence. [1]. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone can find actual indepth coverage in Russian or Japanese. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any assertion of notability, so I don't see why we need to crowd AFD with this type of nomination. A speedy deletion or at most a prod would suffice.--TM 13:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This gives history of the building -- which is notable -- most of the buildings along that section of the Moika River Embankment are rich in history -- often being tied to the Russian Imperial aristocracy. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only one source is provided. significant third party coverage in various sources is what establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Libstar, I believe you have been requested a million times before to notify article creators of discussions relating to articles they have created. I see nothing on my talk page in relation to this. Can we get some sort of guarantee that you will information creators in the future? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no rule about notification, you found this AfD anyway. LibStar (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously, given the sources provided by Russavia. Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only one source is provided. significant third party coverage in various sources is what establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more sources This is another source indepedent of the subject, and is from 1971 -- the year in which the Japanese consulate opened in Saint Petersburg -- which at that time was of course known as Leningrad. Of course google searches for "Генеральное консульство Японии в Санкт-Петербурге" and "Генеральное консульство Японии в Ленинграде" show other results across web, news, books and scholar. There are of course other ways to search, including "консульство Японии в Санкт-Петербурге" and "Генконсульство Японии в Санкт-Петербурге". There are of course other sources such as this, which if the WMF is happy to pay for me to go to Russia and arrange for access to archives and the like, I'd be happy to throw myself into such a venture for at least 2 years and get all of this done. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time for LibStar to reconsider, although I don't hold my breath given this users history of frivolous AFD nominations. Pantherskin (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

refrain from WP:ADHOM attacks, please. LibStar (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems reasonably notable. Warden (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Russavia, and I'd also motion for the WMF to send him archive-prowling in Russia. I think that he has shown well enough that this consulate does pass WP:GNG.--Slon02 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (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.