Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Consulate General in Chennai (2nd nomination)

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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Consulate General in Chennai

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable , consulates less so. Last AfD none of the keep voters showed evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only some brief mentions on News, nothing on the other searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They seem to get regular coverage for vision drives. I found three related articles just by clicking on the {{find sources}} link above. If there is more out there they will be able to pass GNG.

Awada, Vijay (September 16, 2015). "Oz consul-general gives spectacles to students". The Times of India.
Patnaik, Santosh (January 31, 2015). "Australia to fund free spectacles for Hudhud victims". The Hindu.
"'Australia committed to ties with city'". The Hindu. April 16, 2015.

— Jbh ^Talk 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominating again so soon is borderline disruptive. Enough coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2015 :(UTC)

6 months is not borderline disruptive. That is a ridiculous assertion by you. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: You may have been unaware of the guideline at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion#Renominating for deletion which suggests waiting at least two months before relisting when the previous Afd was closed as "no consensus". On that basis, waiting six months was restrained and considerate. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect. It fails the significant coverage guideline of WP:GNG. It can be listed at a future article about the High Commission in Delhi, should that ever prove notable for an article. But in general, embassies, and high commissions do not receive the level of in depth coverage that results in notability, much less consulates. Remember Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest better so if that can happen, this can be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found nothing more in-depth on the vision projects or any other substantial coverage. Jbh ^Talk 13:55, 7 October 2015 (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.