Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Japan 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Japan in Chennai

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

embassies are not always notable, and consulates even less so. info in Consulate-General_of_Japan_in_Chennai#Japanese_in_the_region should be in India-Japan relations. otherwise the article confirms the consulate's existence. also nominating:

All these articles contain routine coverage of name of consul general, what a consulate does (Eg issue visa). LibStar (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some of the consulate articles are filled with rich info (Consulate General of the United States in Chennai, for instance), which can be developed to good article level. They do not only give information about the political entity, but also indicate the cultural, historical and economical significance of the city/region. They also have superlatives (the U.S. consulate in Chennai, for instance, is said to be the one of America's biggest adjudication posts in the world and a global topper in processing employment-based visas). As the economy and bilateral relations between the countries grow, they gain more significance (the recent Japanese visit to India and the subsequent Chennai-Bangalore Industrial Corridor, for instance). Even any unfortunate downturn in the relations adds significance, negatively though. It should be noted that some of the info available in these article are not "readily" available in Google (e.g., list of deputy high commissioners of United Kingdom, year of Japan Consulate's formation, etc.). It's quite hard to find the list of consulate generals of U.S. consulate in Chennai on the Internet (yet to add in the Wiki article). These information are subtle, they indeed fill in the city's historical and economical facets, the contents are informative and encyclopaedic, and the articles are sure to grow in the near future. Having said these, I feel they can be kept. However, these are just my opinion, and please go ahead if you still feel they should be deleted. Rasnaboy (talk)

this AfD is not about the US consulate. Articles growing in the future is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any harm in keeping these articles. In fact, these are well-written articles. They are unbiased, notable and with all the needed references. I see no reason for deleting these. I strongly support keeping these articles. {{— Preceding unsigned comment added by Challengethelimits (talk • contribs)

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, seems more than enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do all articles listed in this AfD satisfy WP:GNG. have you even looked at them all? LibStar (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per reasons given above. - Boneyard90 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Rasnaboy and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2014 (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.