Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate General of Belgium in Chennai

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 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Belgium in Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. coverage merely confirms the consulate exists. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely as I'm not seeing much better. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. Fails GNG Jbh^Talk 11:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no in-depth coverage to show it passes the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This may be of use or interest to people, especially travellers, but also diplomats and the like. The deletionist culture of "non-notable subjects" should not trump a pragmatic approach, especially in the face of wikipedia beauracracy. Ljgua124 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've made zero attempt to demonstrate how a notability guideline is met. WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is small, but sufficient coverage listed in the references (5 newspaper articles) to claim notability and keep this article included. Wikipedia is not paper. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "small but sufficient" is not, by definition, "significant coverage", as required by WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Consensus has been that these embassy/mission articles don't get a free pass; and this article's sources don't get it past WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 18:59, 31 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.