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

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. Based on the discussion I would have closed as merge but will not without an appropriate target. If anyone wants to create a new article to merge this information into I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 15:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:GNG. consuls are not top tier diplomats. Secondly there is no inherent notability of these lists as a similar list was recently deleted. Let's see if the usual suspect turn up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments at several other diplomat-related AfDs. This is just another formulaic microstub about a non-notable topic. Reyk _YO! 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the scope of this role is international and it has received significant independent coverage, including in The Age (2004 Koutsoukis article) and announcement of appointments in The Canberra Times. Clare. (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Canberra Times articles are merely routine announcements and contain no discussion of the consul role like what he does. LibStar (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for someone to vote keep per "Clare's rationale ". LibStar (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable posting, given the notability of recent appointees who are blue-linked, but I believe there is scope for building this page a little more to make it more compliant with what is expected of these list pages.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in what way does it meet a notability guideline? the 3 blue links are notable for other reasons. e.g. 2 were members of parliament. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect (or redirect only for now if needed) to Lists of heads of diplomatic missions of Australia as there's nothing to suggest all of these are actually acceptable for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (keep) by continent or similar, for example, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, should all be one article. Not particualry notable or encyclopedic as standalone articles but combined could be a useful reference/resource for readers. Aoziwe (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Consul-General of Chicago is a relatively minor posting, it has no great diplomatic importance in its own right. However, of the last 5 appointees, 3 of them were independently notable enough to have their own article. I think part of the reason for this, is that the appointees are a bit of a mix – some of them career diplomats, others former politicians. Members of the later category will almost always be notable independently; most of the former aren't independently notable, but some of them are. Given all of this, my preference is to keep the list but merge it into another article . (I'm not sure which merge target is best though.) SJK (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the merge !voters have suggested an appropriate target. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting above that they be merged into fewer articles, for example List of Consuls-General of Australia in North America, noting also independent notability as per above too. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 5 June 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.