Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Milan

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. No sources were provided by those asking for retention (which as I've stated before is borderline disruptive)... therefore the article is simply not retained. (The Drover's Wife - I'll kindly warn you to provide sources in future discussions; this is the second time I've seen this behavior from you and I'm not very fond of it.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

clearly fails WP:GNG. neither the consulate nor any of the consuls that have served are notable. This article is based on primary sources and therefore does not meet WP:GNG. Those arguing keep must show actual evidence of significant third party coverage to show this list is notable. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the proviso that it be moved to Australian Consulate-General, Milan. I have expressed on other pages for deletion discussions (with no response from the nominator as yet) that the case for deletion is easily removed by simply moving the page to a name that focuses on the consulate itself rather than the office-holders, and the content should reflect that also. It appears that third party references are strong enough in each case to justify a page on the topic of the consulate itself.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please provide these actual third party sources. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

simply renaming the article does not resolve the lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will suggest deleting at this one because it was apparently only newly founded and there's nothing else convincing for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having done a few searches, sufficient sources exist to pass GNG and AfD is not cleanup. LibStar's insistent arguing with every single keep vote on his many querulous nominations is getting a bit old. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please show the outcome of your search. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. your keep argument is incredibly generic without actually referring to actual sources. Your comment hardly deters me in fact encourages me more to point out weak arguments and WP:ADHOM attacks like yours LibStar (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith the main page for the Aust Consulate in Milan - doesn't need its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't such a page. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in searches, nor as been offered here in this discussion, to show that either the individuals or the consulate itself passes WP:GNG. Would have no issue with merging, if an article like that existed, but there's no indication the consulate itself has enough notability for an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 16 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.