Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Trade Office Taipei

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Trade Office Taipei[edit]

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

Unsourced OR by an intern at the organisation. While it stops short of G11 it lacks NPOV. Bazj (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, because of Taiwan's relationship with China, Germany is prevented from officially recognising Taiwan and so both countries maintain "trade offices" in place of embassies. These trade offices are, effectively, embassies and the directors of said offices have (in most cases) the full diplomatic rank of ambassador. That said, embassies are not inherently notable, nor are analogous trade offices. The question would be whether there are enough sources relating to the trade office's activities to justify a pass against WP:GNG. I wasn't able enough significant coverage to make it so, but then I don't speak Mandarin or German. I'm probably at delete at the moment, on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: except for the blurb about their birthday party, all sources in the article are primary. The German wiki article has no secondary sources either. Press I can find in RS amounts to brief mentions. Vrac (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2015 (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.