Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo

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 Procedural keep. Participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and want the different embassies to be considered individually. RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo[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:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG - embassies are not inherently notable. No sources given. CakalangSantan (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar decisions were taken for similarly length and sourced articles related to embassies (and consulates): Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo, Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka, Embassy of Germany in Palestine, Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan, Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin, Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa, Embassy of Colombia, Beijing, Embassy of The Republic of Serbia, Canberra, ACT and there are numerous others. CakalangSantan (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also similarly length and sourced as the diplomatic missions listed above. These articles were taken from "Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country" from the 'A' and 'B' lists. One course of action is to merge the information in the articles to their respective bilateral relations pages. Some listed below do not have such a page, however, they do have a foreign relations of ... page where the information could be merge into.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD is not for considering merge proposals. Just go ahead and do the merges as you think appropriate (subject to talk page consensus). Only come back here with articles for which merge or retaining as separate articles is not appropriate, Thincat (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would require separate discussions in 45 talk pages. My main proposal is still for the deletion of the articles. CakalangSantan (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am suggesting that we only discuss those articles you consider should be deleted after you have merged those that you think are suitable for merging. Talk page discussion would only be required when someone raises a specific problem with a particular merge. Merging and deletion are mutually incompatible. Thincat (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was the consensus in the most recent AfD of a related article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo. CakalangSantan (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Absurd amount of articles in one batch nomination. Some of these are historic buildings, like the Embassy of Belgium in Moscow designed by renowned architect Boris Belikovsky[1] or the Embassy of Belarus in Moscow which was the house of Pyotr Rumyantsev and was designed by Matvey Kazakov - Had the nom just look at over the the Russian Wikipedia page they would've seen so but this is an example of how zero WP:BEFORE effort was made with any of these. Vetting every one of these in a single nomination is a complete waste of time for editors. If the nom doesn't like embassies, they should start an ANI. Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) While the information of the building is well documented in the Russian Wikipedia page, it's counterpart in the English Wikipedia page does not provide details of the building's notoriety. 2) If the request was not done together, then it would just be 45 separate nomination requests. 3) I happen to be fond of embassies, I've started articles for Embassy of Indonesia, Berlin and Embassy of Indonesia, Beijing. CakalangSantan (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per deletion policy and guidelines article content does not determine notability. It doesn't matter if something well-documented in another language WP article isn't yet included in the English language one. That's why WP:BEFORE needs to be done which it wasn't at all with any of these. If you feel that 45 articles are no longer worthy of inclusion, then start 45 separate AfDs. Do them over time if like, but this batch AfD is only wasting everyone's time. Well done on the creation of those two articles.Oakshade (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the opinions expressed above that these articles need to be evaluated individually. The Bulgarian embassy in London, for example, is the main setting for one of the most popular films in Bulgaria, which though not conferring notability, still means that it's got a place in the popular imagination and so coverage in sources is likely to be found if sought for. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most of these articles turn out to be non-notable, but this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and taking account of what the article could look like if expanded, not what it happens to look like at the moment. – Uanfala (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - AfD is not here to sort out masses of articles that need to be considered individually, when some are notable, some are not, and some are in between. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Bearian has said it well. If there was an accepted view that embassies are not encyclopedia worthy, a mass nomination would make some sense. Given that this is not the case, this is simply the wrong approach to take. Spokoyni (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong procedural keep Way too much and too many different specifics to be lumped into one AfD. At the very very lesast they all need to be listed appropriately, for example the Australian one/s in "list of Australia-related deletion discussions". I found this by accident. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2019 (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.