Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 April	25 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu

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

is there a need for a list when only 1 person has held the post? secondly we have very few list of ambassador articles, so I question the need for a list of Consuls-General who are lower ranked diplomats. Also nominating :

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Makassar

LibStar (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a way to Merge and redirect is found. After looking through some consuls-general related pages, I have not found any pages to merge this one into Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Not-very-high-ranking or significant diplomatic posts. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both The scope of a Consulate General is definitely international, and it is certainly notable, this has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Further, if there are very few lists of ambassador articles, then that is a gap rather than a reason to keep other notable topics out. I would suggest the reason it is termed a 'list' for one person is for consistency with other similar articles. Here are some of the secondary sources covering the Chengdu Consulate General with significant depth:
- Sainsbury, Michael (20 March 2012). "Australia to open new consulate in Chengdu". The Australian. News Corp Australia.
- Wen, Philip (31 July 2013). "Mission opens door to vast interior". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media.
- "Australian Consulate-General in Chengdu Opens Officially". Gochengdu.cn. 11 November 2014.
- One year on: A message from Ms Nancy Gordon, the Consul-General in Chengdu, Australia China Connections Pty Ltd, archived from the original on 21 September 2014
- Peng Chao (14 November 2015). "Australian visa application center opens in Chengdu". China Daily.

Clare. (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this coverage makes a list of Consuls-General notable. You've given coverage except one about the consulate not consul general. It's a separate discussion if the consulate is notable. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also how can you argue keep both when you've provided zero coverage for Makassar? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you've also attempt to canvass someone into this discussion [1]. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the page about canvassing it says 'In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus,' which was what my aim was. Here's coverage for Makassar as requested:

"Islands in focus: Australia opens consulate general in Makassar". The Jakarta Post. 23 March 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2016.
Darmawan, Awang (22 March 2016). "Bishop to Inaugurate Australian Consulate-General in Makassar". Tempo Co.
"Australia notifies VP about plan to open consulate general in Makassar". Antara News. 21 March 2016.
Hajramurni, Andi (2 December 2015). "Australia to open consulate general in Makassar next year". The Jakarta Post.
"Australia strengthens presence in Indonesia". Antara News. 25 March 2016.

Clare. (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is coverage about the office of the consulate not coverage where the person who is consul general is the subject LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing accusations about canvassing isn't helpful, especially given that I'm the author of the Chengdu page (I.E. an 'Editor who has made substantial edits to the topic or article') and I had no notification of its deletion until Clare notified me. I see the problem being solved by moving of these pages to a title that focuses on the consulate itself, rather than merely the office-holders, with a bit more info on its functions thrown in; say to Australian Consulate-General, Makassar/Chengdu? This has been done here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I agree with above. There is clear notability and modern diplomacy often means that most consuls-general have many delegated and policy roles that would normally be the sole responsibility of an ambassador. These posts fulfil this role. If deletion is approved, perhaps a single page listing various Australian consuls-general (like I did with the special interests abassadors and envoys) could be a possible compromise. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is presuming ambassadors are inherently notable which they are not. And consul generals even less so. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

consuls do not have sole responsibility of roles assigned to ambassadors unless no ambassador exists in that country. The ambassador always retains full responsibility. In this case, there are ambassadors in China and Indonesia. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps a merge of certain material into the ambassador pages (i.e. for china and indonesia ambassadors) is a better compromise? Not notable enough for their own page, perhaps, but enough to warrant inclusions in a page dealing with the closest subject.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ludicrous lists given the number of entries and questionable notability of the individuals. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LIST in so many ways. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously? Both of these roles have only been held by a single person, so what's the need for a list here? I agree that an article on this could eventually be useful, but it's WP:TOOSOON for that. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:33, 11 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kallan Holley

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Notable, has had lead roles in tv shows like PAW Patrol. http://www.moviefone.com/tv/paw-patrol/286599/credits/ , the upcoming Angry Birds film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985949/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 . And many more. Thursby16 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Thursby16 is the original writer of and primary contributor to the article in question. crh23 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a main role in Paw Patrol, which is in its third season. She will also be in The Angry Birds Movie, though I'm not sure how big her role is. She has also won a young artist award, and was nominated for another. Finally, despite the articles short existence, it has already been viewed 137 times. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps and certainly Redirect' to Paw Patrol as this is still frankly questionable and the best two works are listed, too soon at best. I'm also no longer convinced by the Young Artist Awards to save articles. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the last time so the debate (hopefully) receives some more attention. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which people in any field of endeavour are entitled to have articles just because they exist — it takes reliable source coverage about her in media to earn her an article. If you have to rely on cast lists in cast-list directories like Moviefone or IMDb as your only "sources", however, then you have not gotten her over the bar — and no source present here is anything more than an IMDb-like cast-list directory. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her sourceability gets a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. The only sources that can be found are very routine things, nothing that shows notability in any way. When trying to scrape together sources for an article, if the best we can find is something like this, it's a good hint that it's not quite time to make such an article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal career (so far) and there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not noteworthy at this time. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately as she hasn't done very much yet (she is very young of course) there are very few sources that can be used to prove notability. She may well become very famous and we may see her name again in the future. ツStacey (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep' Adequate indicia of notability. I'm noticing a lot of bias against children's programming lately; these programs are themselves of adequate notability and while they are not as extensively covered in the mainstream press as "adult" films, one needs to look to the standard of the world of children's programming and assess within that level. Not everyone has to be Hannah Montana to meet GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:56, 4 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.

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 redirect to List of tallest buildings in Italy. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torre San Vincenzo

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

Totally unsourced article without any indication of notability. It's a large office building, and that's it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Genoa, or perhaps Weak Keep, because the Italian Wikipedia seems to have a sizable article on this building - however, I can't read Italian so it may be an article on another building with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it certainly appears to be the same building as the Italian Wikipedia has an article on, but I wouldn't call it "sizeable": it's under 2Kb! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My knowledge of Italian is rudimentary, but even so it is adequate to convince me that this article is an only slightly shortened version of the Italian Wikipedia one - the differences seem to consist of a couple more names for the building, one not very substantial reference and links to other Wikipedia articles which actually work. The building was not the tallest even in Genoa when built, so unless being over 100 metres in height for a building from before 1970 is automatically notable, I am not currently seeing any reason to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at least minimally better for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No convincing reason to merge, and none of the content is sourced. Nothing much found from a web search to indicate that the building is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Support redirect per Cavarrone below. --Michig (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Italy, there are a few results in Google Books but they are only visible as snippets so they are difficult to evaluate. Possibly notable, possibly not, for now a redirect to the relevant list (where Torre San Vincenzo is 29th) seems a reasonable solution. Cavarrone 05:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be reasonable, although the entry in that list also appears to be unsourced. --Michig (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Italy. Not finding source coverage to qualify an article. However, it's listed at the list article, and this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 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.