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.
fails WP:ORG. diplomatic missions are not inherently notable . All the sources prove is that the office exists rather than in depth third party coverage.
LibStar (
talk) 13:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith(talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of coverage to be found and this seems to be the official ambassador of Taiwan since Taiwan famously has to operate a bit differently in international matters.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Additionally, it doesn't seem to operate in just Saudi Arabia as mentioned in the article but on a larger scale.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The sources merely confirm existence , can you give examples of in depth coverage.
LibStar (
talk) 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
There's a lengthy interview with an "ambassador," a story on a meeting between a prince and the ambassador and three stories on events run by the office which also cover the office. If you were to cover a person, what kind of coverage would constitute as "in-depth coverage?" Because I don't know what's more in-depth than an interview. Regardless of those there are countless of official pages "confirming the existence" which could be used as sources all the same even without these news articles.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 10:13, 20 August 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.
fails WP:ORG. diplomatic missions are not inherently notable . All the sources prove is that the office exists rather than in depth third party coverage.
LibStar (
talk) 13:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith(talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of coverage to be found and this seems to be the official ambassador of Taiwan since Taiwan famously has to operate a bit differently in international matters.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Additionally, it doesn't seem to operate in just Saudi Arabia as mentioned in the article but on a larger scale.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The sources merely confirm existence , can you give examples of in depth coverage.
LibStar (
talk) 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)reply
There's a lengthy interview with an "ambassador," a story on a meeting between a prince and the ambassador and three stories on events run by the office which also cover the office. If you were to cover a person, what kind of coverage would constitute as "in-depth coverage?" Because I don't know what's more in-depth than an interview. Regardless of those there are countless of official pages "confirming the existence" which could be used as sources all the same even without these news articles.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 10:13, 20 August 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.