Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina Trade and Cultural Office (2nd nomination)

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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina Trade and Cultural Office[edit]

[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)

fails WP:ORG and GNG. This is a de facto embassy. Embassies are not inherently notable. No evidence of significant coverage. Zero gnews hits in English. And 1 gnews hit in Spanish LibStar (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: Is there a reason you’re slow rolling Taiwanese representative offices for deletion? I was the only voter on the last two you proposed for AfD and if you’re being systematic about it but not being open about it that feels wrong. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NGO. The nomination makes the international scope clear and so coverage in independent sources is the only question. The claim of only one Spanish-language source is incorrect: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there does appear to be adequate coverage. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:04, 6 March 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.