Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Seoul

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 DELETE. The argument that embassies are inherently notable has no basis in policy. That argument would carry some weight with me if there was overwhelming consensus for it - after all, policy is merely the expression of consensus here. However there is no basis for it in either policy or consensus. The request to create Colombia-South Korea relations is not a matter for AfD, but I will userfy the deleted article on request for anyone wishing to use it as material for such an article. Spinning Spark 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Seoul

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. they need significant coverage of its activities. being located near other embassies or a book store does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to create Colombia-South Korea relations and broaden scope to include http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/Col_kor/col_kor_e.asp. see also Google Books on Colombia being the only Latin American country participating with the United Nations Forces in the Korean War. Did you know this when nominating for AfD? In ictu oculi (talk)

no, because the AfD is about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and what is an wikt:embassy? It isn't the physical rented space in an insurance building. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Create - Per IIO. --Noleander (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

mijotoba (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't supplied any sources. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been supplied.... mijotoba (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if this embassy is deleted, you also have to go through and nominate and delete all pages related to embassies like Embassy of the United States, Juba mijotoba (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No but WP:WORLDVIEW is. We have to make some allowance for there being less easy access to sources in Spanish and Korean. In any case this is now moot. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think this article is being targeted because is a Colombian embassy in an unrelated country with "few bilateral relations" country, but had this been an American embassy in an unrelated country with "few bilateral relations" like the Embassy in Juba, there wouldnt have been any scrutiny (and there wasnt on that particular article). So I find the delete and move options biased since all countries need to be treated similar. mijotoba (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no inherent notability for embassies. Each should be judged for satisfaction of WP:ORG. This one does not appear to have the required significant coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources needed to satisfy the notability guideline. "Article X also exists and would have to be deleted" is not a convincing Keep argument. Edison (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, can you comment on the Korean war content please? Delete is no longer an option since the notability here is already massively proven for Move to create Colombia-South Korea relations. The only thing deleting achieves at this point is disrupting article history and effecting a cut and paste which breaks copyright law. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you derive the authority to announce, in the middle of an AFD, that "Delete is no longer an option." I strongly reject your claim that this AFD cannot result in the deletion of the article. There is no guideline which says that embassies are inherently notable, and there has not been "massive" proof of notability. The fact that the Korean War occurred, or that Columbia had some relationship to it, does not prove that their embassy is notable. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it can still be deleted, why not just create the article now? LibStar (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources have been used, what more than the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both Colombia and Korea and legislation regarding its accreditation.mijotoba (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stand on the position that embassies are inherently notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they are not inherently notable, just because you say so. That is a poor reason for keep. Some of these have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a keep. Move was a compromise. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see embassies as inherently notable, international in scope, subject of news articles, meets WP:ORG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

embassies are not inherently notable. 3 of the sources refer to its location, 2 to how the embassy is accredited for elsewhere, thats not indepth coverage. and 2 more related to bilateral relations. Have you even looked at the article. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current sources are less than ideal but, in my view, their lack of quality is not sufficient grounds for deleting the article. It is likely there are good sources out there to be found and that there will be even more in the future. Relations between nations is an important subject; so is diplomacy in a general sense. Embassies are often in the news, with stories about asylum seekers, diplomatic rows, unfortunately sometimes attacks; this information becomes more important if there are any conflicts or incidents between these two nations. Journalists, government officials, persons seeking to change countries, architects -- many will need encyclopedic information on this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide for what an embassy can do. WP:NOTGUIDE. This embassy has not featured significantly in the news so fails WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2013 (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.