Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Pakistan, Chicago

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 Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C.. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article. With respect to the ultimate resolution, there is no clear consensus, and enough support for the information being useful that a merge remains as the best option. BD2412 T 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Pakistan, Chicago

Consulate-General of Pakistan, Chicago (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. 3 of the 5 references merely confirm who was consul. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:V, useful and encyclopedic. No indication that deletion of this longstanding article would serve the project's interests. More importantly, the burden of proof should always be on the proponent of deletion, and that burden does not seem to have been carried here. It's not clear that WP:ORG is intended to apply to government agencies at all (it seems odd that they would be omitted from the laundry list: "charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc.") Even if ORG applies, it's unclear how it is possible to fail a guideline that only states certain conditions for establishing a presumption of notability. As somebody or other probably said somewhere, the absence of a presumption does not justify a presumption of absence. -- Visviva (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

burden of proof? Complete lack of third party sources... have you found any? Your arguments for keep are just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. This fails WP:GNG by a long mark. LibStar (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added 5 new references to the article today – Chicago Tribune (newspaper), University of Chicago website, Dawn (newspaper) and Pakistan American Business Association website. Hopefully, this satisfies the requirement for 'third party and independent sources'. Removed all dead references from 2009 and updated the remaining references.Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Chicago Tribune article is from a "community contributor" and the Dawn article doesn't mention the consulate at all. Pburka (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above-mentioned Dawn newspaper article DOES mention this Chicago Consulate. Here is a direct quote from this Dawn article, "The day-long Youth Conference was organized by Consulate General of Pakistan, Chicago in collaboration with the University of Illinois at Chicago and was attended by over 300 students and young professionals of Pakistani origin". Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You're correct. I'd missed that single mention. It does confirm that the consulate exists. Pburka (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have a bunch of articles with passing mentions. There are no articles about the CGoP. We are unable to source content about the role of the organization. We can just say events in which they were involved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It may be more proper to create an omnibus article dealing with all of the Consulate-General presences in the United States so that a better article can be formed (including Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Houston); even the template is out of date involving North American C-G presences of Pakistan. Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C. It appears to fail WP:GNG. None of the sources given are about the consulate's history itself; it's about things that happened there. None of them are evidence that the CG has had a significant independent history, either as an organization (only established in 2005) or as a physical site (since it's just a suite in 333 North Michigan). After other editors have attempted to find sources, here's all they've been able to dig up as of 2020-02-09:
  1. "Consulate General of Pakistan in Chicago Celebrated the 69th Independence Day with Patriotic Fervor" is on chicagotribune.com, but is by a "community contributor" (which means "unsolicited and unpaid"), contains the writer's opinions, and appears to have not been edited for professional English, so probably not Chicago Tribune editorial-level content. Also, this is about an independence day event, not about the history or overall operation of the Consulate-General itself. So it doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV, and is weak on being "reliable" and "independent of the subject" also.
  2. PABA press release: Only about the Consulate General in passing, in that the CG issued a press release and that the consul hosted a party for the kids. Not WP:SIGCOV at all.
  3. "New Silk Road Business Opportunities": University of Chicago Booth School of Business event ticket announcement; only mentions the CG at the end as one of several co-sponsors. Practically a textbook example of what is not WP:SIGCOV.
  4. "Haqqani urges Pakistani-Americans to be carve niche in US mainstream": Just another event organized by the CG in Chicago. "Similar events are planned to be held in New York, Houston and Los Angeles in the coming months, officials said." Not WP:SIGCOV.
  5. "Chicago Consulate – Consulate General of Pakistan". Just the directory and staff information for the CG, by the Pakistani embassy. Not independent, and not significant coverage anyway; fails WP:SIGCOV.
  6. "List of Consulates in City of Chicago, Office of the Mayor website": The title says it all. It's just a directory. Not WP:SIGCOV.
  7. "Mr. Javed Ahmed Umrani, Consul General of Pakistan, Chicago": The title says it all; it's a short biography of the current consul general, not the Chicago post itself; and also, it's on the Chicago CG's own website, so it wouldn't be an independent source anyway. Not WP:SIGCOV of the Consulate-General.

  For completeness: Of the 5 sources before February, 4 were official publications of the Pakistani delegation/embassy/consulate, so not independent of the subject; and the other one, "Pak Consulate Chicago opens, Mayor Daley and Ambassador Karamat felicitate hard working Pakistani community." on January 23, 2005, appears to have been from Pakistan Press International, but the original link is long gone and seems to have been paywalled even in archives, and I don't have access to see if that was WP:SIGCOV or not. I can't find any other English-language WP:SIGCOV articles about the consulate-general, and since it opened in 2005, one would assume that any significant coverage would be on the web. --Closeapple (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. There's nothing that shows this consulate is any more notable than every other consulate from every other country.Sandals1 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C. and add the information and photos over there. Instead of so many fragmented small articles, having a larger article which includes information about all the Pakistani diplomatic missions in the US is preferable. I do not agree with deleting this article since the diplomatic presence of a country in another is something which I would expect to read in an encyclopaedia. I agree with consolidating all of these in one article.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Closeapple and DreamLinker. Pburka (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is there to merge exactly? Closeapple shows what kind of sourcing is available. That doesn't, in my opinion, belong in the embassy article. At best we would note that there is a consulate in Chicago and who the top official is. But that's hardly "merge" worthy and the embassy isn't even, in my reading, a good redirect target because again what useful information are we redirecting someone interested in this topic to? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2020 (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.