Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa

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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown that embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show sources.

Also nominating:

Embassy of Armenia, Ottawa
High Commission of Malawi in Ottawa which closed 7 years ago.
High Commission of Cameroon, Ottawa
Embassy of Portugal, Ottawa
Embassy of Kuwait, Ottawa

LibStar (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request before deciding. Can you demonstrate via Wikilinks that embassies have been shown to not be notable inherently? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no WP guideline which says embassies are automatically notable, hence WP:ORG applies. Here's 2 recent AfDs with outcome deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Ankara and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ukraine, Bern. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin the Honduras embassy was covered in a different AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This AFD was closed in error for about 24 hours, please extend it for that amount of time. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment - This is weird. It seems that MBisanz (talk · contribs) deleted the article that is the subject of this AfD, but did not delete any of the other articles nominated. There was little participation and the debate was shown as closed for a whole day, so a relist is absolutely necessary. ~~I'll contact them as I think they did it accidentally.~~ Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article that is the subject of this AfD was deleted from a group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa. The discussion should now center on the other articles nominated, which do not have consensuses to delete. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm relisting this because although the first article has been deleted, I didn't entirely notice that the others were still open. The first article is deleted, but the rest are still up for AfD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 20 *'April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: See above comment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No evidence of any notability Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to their corresponding bilateral relations articles -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

most of these do not have corresponding bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per above. Certainly, the existence of these embassies can and should be noted in whatever lists of embassies may be found for these countries - but there is not enough notability for standalone articles at this time. (NB: I was one of several who asked Tokyogirl79 to revisit her close here) UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - each embassy shouldn't have its own page. The embassies from a representative country, or to a country should be merged. Articles can also be merged under "corresponding bilateral relations article", as suggested above, if notable. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:07, 25 April 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.