Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Commission of Australia, Islamabad

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 merge to Australia-Pakistan relations. I find Pilaz's contribution the most persuasive from a policy viewpoint, in a debate that teetered on the edge of no consensus but ultimately came down to strength of argument, not quantity. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Australia, Islamabad

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Embassies/high commissions are not inherently notable. This article just confirms it exists, lacks third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 4 new references from the major newspapers of Pakistan. Removed all dead links and added 2 external links from Australia. Meets WP:GNG now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY following edits by Ngrewal1. Deus et lex (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of the added referencesJackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Only the first source even purports to cover the commission itself, the other ones just mention it in passing alongside routine associated events, such as minor cultural exchanges or public statements by the people who work in it (again, only proving that it exists, as the nominator pointed out). Notability not established with significant and WP:SUSTAINED coverage in sources. Avilich (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australia-Pakistan relations. Embassy does not seem independently notable, but can be upmerged to parent article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia-Pakistan relations (changing my vote above, rationale remains the same) Avilich (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ngrewal's edits. If something can be fixed, it shouldn't be at AFD, it should be fixed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all routine fluff that fails WP:NOTNEWS. Avilich (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australia-Pakistan relations. Favoring merge because the first source (The Express Tribune) covers the High Commission with a little bit of depth which could be useful for the other article. Coverage is neither sustained, significant nor multiple since sources cover almost exclusively the High Commissioner, and not the High Commission. Fails WP:GNG, and as Avilich pointed out, WP:SUSTAINED. Pilaz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (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.