Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Mission in Sweden

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 no consensus. At this point, there doesn't seem to be any particular consensus on this low-traffic AfD. There is a slight numerical majority of keep !votes and User:Julle has brought some sources in Swedish. However, it has not been verified if these sources can support the content. User:LibStar's query about third party coverage in newspapers has also not been answered.

As there have already been 2 relists with low participation (and there is a possibility that sources may not be in English), this is a tentative close as a no consensus, with a hope that editors will try to find sources. Should no sources be found, there is no prejudice against re-nominating this again in 3-6 months.

On a side note, it would also be worth looking into WP:ATD and see if it is possible to selectively merge this article to any acceptable target. I notice that a similar article Swedish Trade and Invest Council exists and it would be worth discussing if it should be merged into a single article. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Mission in Sweden[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. trade missions as de facto embassies are not inherently notable. most of the sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage that does exist is routine and not generally independent, so I don't see GNG here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is generally not in English (as could be expected for a Chinese-Swedish subect) – "駐瑞典台北代表團" seems to mainly be of the English sort when it comes to coverage, but there's a bit in Swedish if we look for "Taiwans ambassad", "Taiwans representation", "Taiwans representationskontor", "Taipeis representationskontor" or "Taipeis ekonomiska och kulturella representationskontor". /Julle (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please list actual websites of these sources. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started expanding the article a bit, adding a couple of sources etc (and removing less reliable, as well as making sure they don't look like they cover more than they do). /Julle (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the references still merely confirm it exists and who held the post. I don't see significant coverage in third party sources like newspapers. LibStar (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep per Julle, though I can't independently verify the contents of the sources as I can't read Swedish. Deryck C. 17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle's expansion/addition of sources.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2017 (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.