Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate General of Serbia in Vukovar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Croatia–Serbia relations. Black Kite (t) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Serbia in Vukovar

[edit]
Consulate General of Serbia in Vukovar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. consulates are rarely rately notable. nothing in gnews. and a search in google merely reveals its address [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Please provide reliable sources to back your claims. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not seem that this is not a reason for keeping the article (...Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid.The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales.When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes...)? While it is true that I'm not too familiar with this part of the rules. Here is a series of articles on the consulate or consulate which was mentioned as an organizer of something or similar http://www.gk-srbije-vukovar.hr/press.html . Unfortunately, the fact is that in a large number of links can no longer enter (It is a daily newspaper, radio stations, TV stations so that eventually was deleted). A local radio station, Radio Borovo have quite a number of articles which mention the Consulate (which is imp. for the part about today's activities). On the Internet you can find the presentation of elementary school in Markušica about trip to Serbia, which was organized by the Consulate. It is probably possible to find another sources (http://www.google.hr/search?q=generalni+konzulat+republike+srbije+u+vukovaru+filetype%3Apdf&hl=hr&biw=1280&bih=667&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images), but it seems to me that the previous are sufficient. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the consulate website is a primary source so insufficient for establishing notability. Please provide actual evidence of third party coverage not a google search. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, this is a list of articles published in other media and they are only collected (with the links of which as I said a good part does not work today) on the website of the Consulate. Other sources have the second link (but also only in Serbo-Croatian). --MirkoS18 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, you must specify sources not simply say they exist. 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, you must specify sources not simply say they exist. 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The links above constitute a collection of routine coverage, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. Yes, the police guard the consulate whenever there's ethnic rioting. Yes, consul opened a children's park. Yes, the consulate was involved in the release of a person detained by the Croatian police. Yes, they mark anniversaries and organize concerts and they issue passports and whenever Serbia's president or prime minister visits Croatia they drop by for a cup of coffee. These are all usual activities of any consulate anywhere and they don't make the consulate itself notable. Besides, in all the examples above the consulate is given only a passing mention. Which one of these could you actually use in the article? Probably none. Timbouctou (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That part is wrong comparison by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The first two of course, they are essential (: . But also all the others that you mentioned in the section on the history of consulate (ethnic rioting, cup of coffee when Tadić came-what was not so insignificant event etc.). Donations and similar to the part of today's activities and consulate role in public and minority life in post-war Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. Statement by the President of the SDSS as a cover for the assertion of the importance of the consulate for local Serbs.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This mean that article should not be deleted. However, I do not agree that the article should be moved into a section of Croatia–Serbia relations (article is part of category with that name). Article certainly should be mentioned there, but I noticed that the practice is not to write about all diplomatic missions in deails there but to make special articles about them. In this case (if we merge this article), that article will become very cumbersome (broader topics would be very poorly covered, while this particular case will be described as the rest of article). So, if we take into account the most of us agree that article should not be deleted (we think it needs to be keeped or merged), if we take that there is a practice of writing such individual articles and finally if we consider what should be done to move the entire article in article Croatia–Serbia relations (with its future extensions), I think it is not justified to do anything than keep this article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a section of Croatia-Serbia relations. Both articles are stubs and this one consists of only 3 sentences, so I don't see how the three sentences may cause any imbalance of the relations article, especially since the relations article already mentions the consulate. The consulate may be notable, but the consulate article just says that the consulate is there and that it's operating in five nearest counties which hardly warrants an article on its own.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I plan to amend the article on the basis of the above sources. I also believe that there is no any valid objection to the article. I think that conversation is going in wrong direction since you do not adhered to the usual standards and do not respect the rules, but trying to impose your own will. Also, I think that in a previous talk I give more than sufficient and clear arguments with which every impartial reader can not fail to agree-I proved that topic is covered by sources, we achieved consensus that the Consulate is notable, I showed the relevant comparisons, I pointed out the specifics of the consulate and cover that by sources (it was a lot more than the initial objections on article was). Now it seems to me that there is simply trying of overruling by number. It should be clear that number of "votes" are not a criterion by wikipedia in these type of conversations. I think it's time to bring the only reasonable decision, and that's to keep the article?--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means - expand the article, add notable and verifiable material and no serious objection can be made regardless of any votes or absence/presence of articles on similar topics. Still, I'd prefer to have information added to the relations article as it is very terse. For an example of a good article see German–Japanese relations—it might be used to point direction to where the relations article might develop, as I'm sure there's a lot of material suitable for the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:12, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consulate_General_of_Serbia_in_Vukovar&oldid=1258055723"