Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Consulate-General, Taihoku

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 Taiwan under Japanese rule. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Consulate-General, Taihoku[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. unreferenced for 3.5 years. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Taiwan under Japanese rule. Only merge material which can be reliably sourced. Pburka (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems sensible, on the basis suggested by Pburka (reliably sourced material only). Stalwart111 04:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added one reference and there is other material to be found - there appears to be some sort of connection with The Brookings Institute. A merger with Taiwan under Japanese rule is a fall back possibility, although that article is already very long. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 08:18, 27 March 2014 (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.