Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Malaysia in Moscow

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Malaysia in Moscow[edit]

fails WP:ORG. simply being an embassy does not merit its own article. WP:NOTDIR also applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: actually I would like to nominate all in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Diplomatic_missions_in_Moscow . They can all be covered in Diplomatic missions in Russia. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As you have nominated all of these articles, it is now clear that you are being absolutely discruptive. Embassy of Afghanistan in Moscow, Embassy of Armenia in Moscow, Embassy of France in Moscow, Embassy of Tanzania in Moscow, etc are all notable. Did you even bother to check a single one. You haven't consulted editors, you haven't consulted Wikiprojects, you are basically just being disruptive, and as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libya–Vanuatu relations, and only again not long ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kiribati relations, you are evidently not even looking for sources, and as is evident by your nomination of ALL articles in that category, it is WP:TEDIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Also, can I ask why you aren't following WP:AFD and notifying article creators (in this instance ME) of this AfD? I think it is now time that you have restrictions placed for the nominating of articles for AfD, because you are not following procedures which are in place. Enough is enough. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a requirement that article creators be notified when articles are nominated for deletion - the wording at WP:AFD is "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." As you responded to this nomination within 30 minutes of it being listed, you appear either have the article watchlisted or monitor AfD regularly so no harm was done (I agree that it is good practice to notify article creators though, and I try to do this when I nominate articles for deletion). Could you please provide some sources which demonstrate the embassy's notability? I strongly oppose the casual mass-nomination of all the 79 embassy articles, especially as this includes very notable embassies such as those of the US and UK which have been the subject of many newspaper articles, non-fiction and fiction books, etc. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a personal attack. Please withdraw your remarks. Guy0307 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Russavia, if I am disruptive then all the 50 odd articles I have nominated in recent week would be all kept. You have found 2 supposed examples of disruption, one of which I withdrew, how about the other 50 odd ones I nominated? About 70-80% of articles I've nominated have been deleted through AfD process, this is hardly disruptive. If you disagree with this, you can contest in deletion review. one could easily argue that a certain editor was WP:TEDIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE for creating 100s of useless X-Y articles, in fact this user was banned twice for this. As Nick-D says there is absolutely no requirement for a nominator to contact the article creator, no one in the history of Wikipedia has been blocked for not following this suggestion. Lastly, I am happy to nominate embassies individually for deletion and thus retract the group nomination. I ask that we can continue civilly on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it wasn't for Misha's big five day adventure in the countryside, most of these articles would be developed by now; so blame him for that part. However, now that the disruptive nomination of the entire category has now been stricken, and yes, I will stand by saying that such bulk nominations are disruptive, because as you said it could be taken to DRV, but that would not be required is one looked in the first place, I would suggest doing to this what I did to Embassy of Malta in Moscow, and that is Redirect this single article to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. If you aren't sure if a topic is notable or note, read WP:BEFORE (and actually implement parts of it, and do a search)...if that yields no results, consider if content can be merged at a relevant article, and if that isn't required, ask yourself would a redirect to another relevant article be warranted. For example, after research, this is a Brezhnev-era building, and isn't on a heritage register (like a huge amount of embassies in Moscow are - such as Embassy of Mali in Moscow [1] which you did the AfD and then undid), and hence by all rights it could be deleted, as it is here at AfD. But a better solution is to redirect it as mentioned above. Stop and think of what one is doing beforehand, perhaps consider raising concerns on the talk page if it isn't clear to yourself (and that is evident due to many nominations which have survived), and also perhaps notify the article creator and/or substantial editors on their talk page as to the AfD; not all editors keep articles on their watchlists (I only found this one by going thru the last 5 days of AfD nominations looking for those relations articles) and they may be able to provide insight that you can't see. A prime example is the Libya-Vanuatu article, that I posted on the talk page of only a couple of days previous with a source for use and which would further establish its notability, so it was lucky that this one was caught, because most editors seem to treat these discussions as a vote, and don't even bother looking for sources themselves; and use AfD as a last resort, not the rash way that it is obviously being done which somewhat causes responses as above. Can I ask that you not touch any other of these Russian embassy and bilateral relations article as yet (meaning not take to AfD), as for the last week I have been going thru some 85GB of date and collating it altogether in Zotero for placement in articles. Thanks. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is only your opinion it is disruptive, in many cases I've checked Foreign ministry websites and undertaken Google news searches. Most of my AfD nominations have been deleted, and since most that I have nominated have been created from a now banned editor, how do I contact such a person? and no I don't send every single bilateral or embassy article to deletion. but I am happy to not touch Russian embassy articles for the meanwhile. I will still nominate bilateral articles in the meantime but I will say the rate of this will slow, as many of the most obvious non-notable ones have been deleted now. you should note that I have created about 6 new bilateral articles and intend to create more. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it quite clear that the bulk nomination is what I called disruptive, and I am sure you can recognise why one would call it that, given the existence of what is in the category already. Many of these missions are located in heritage buildings in Moscow and Saint Petersburg; we even have an article (which I wrote) on a no longer existent Embassy of Germany in Saint Petersburg. Even the Residence of the Ambassador of the United States in Moscow is notable (as are quite a few other ambassadorial residences). Anyway, I have retracted the comments above due to the striking of the blanket nomination. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, or really of being of any significance as a building. Foreign relations issues shouldn't be dealt with in this type of article, so notability of Malaysian-Russina relations shouldn't factor here. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedeia is not a directory of non-notable office buildings. There is no inherent notability for embassies. Edison (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is absolutely absurd that we are literally, destroying pages that are involved with WikiProject International relations, we already are in the process of removing hundreds of "x-y relations" stubs and now we are doing the same to embassies as well. I support many of LibStar's nominations but not this one. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an ugly office building like thousands of others. No multiple, reliable, in-depth sources ascribe any notability thereto. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Russia, as it is a likely search term, and it is better that we have such terms redirecting somewhere and that is the best place for redirecting to. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep permanent diplomatic missions in major countries are notable.DGG (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with DGG. All other similar articles should be kept too. Please compare with Branham House (Scott County, Kentucky). This is an article about a single house, and there are many such articles.Biophys (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as per DGG. --Miacek (t) 10:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I am conditioned by my interests and experiences, but I feel that any place flying a foreign flag and being sort of "extraterritorial" is obviously "interesting", even if not formally "notable". Therefore I am sympathetic with DGG and Biophys's view that, even if not all embassies are inherently notable, most are. Typically, each embassy is at least mentioned in multiple sources (such as numerous guidebooks and on-line directories), serves as the location of various official or unofficial events (from diplomatic reception to protest demonstrations), often is a focal point for the local expat community, and is of some importance for the diplomats' sending country. The existence of each one results from a particular international agreement, which is presumably published in the nation's equivalent of something like Federal Register, and certainly reported in local media. True, this particular mission seems to be on the low end of the "media interest" scale (Google claims some 2000 hits for Russian search terms, малайзийское посольство в москве, but those are mostly information one-liners from travel advisories and a few fairly boring news stories). Still, I would think that the notability potential exists - and if someone did a bit of good work by creating a stub article and actually taking a photo for it, deleting it is rather pointless. Vmenkov (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vmenkov says "each embassy is at least mentioned in multiple sources (such as numerous guidebooks and on-line directories" then that falls under WP:NOTDIR, we shouldn't have an article if all we can find through web searches is its address. If an embassy has been subject to notable protests or diplomatic visits then it should naturally receive significant third party coverage and meet WP:N. Just because something exists does not mean it's notable. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even for this admittedly "low-profile" embassy it often is not just the address (and business hours) - there are articles discussing the consular procedures (e.g., "Malaysia generally issues such-and-such types of tourist visas, but the Moscow embassy does not, because Russian citizens are eligible for a short-stay visa on arrival"), minor cultural events ("Ms. so-and-so teaches a Malay dance class") etc. Fortunately, nobody in Russia has reasons to protest against Malaysia, so nothing like what happend around Danish missions a few years ago, or around Sri Lankan embasssies now.

I have taken a look at the well-designed article List of diplomatic missions in Russia, and agree that it is possible to merge a "minor" embassy article like this into the "list" article without information loss; therefore I don't object to the Merge/Redirect proposal in this and similar cases. But, in any event, I believe that for all such "minor" missions it is highly useful to have all this basic information and photo handy (even if as a part of the "list" article), in case some event happens that generates more news and calls for the re-creation of the article. It seems to me that even a minor country's diplomatic mission has a much greater potential for generating international news than, say, an average high school. (I don't know if we have a policy that says that every HS is inherently notable, but it seems that at least in Indiana they behave as if they were). Vmenkov (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Permanent diplomatic missions between major countries have a strong claim of inherent notability and additional available material should be used to expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGG took the words right out of my mouth, and not for the first time. Embassies in major countries are notable. Russia is a major country. Malaysia, arguable. I would be inclined to question what the desired outcome is of nominating every embassy article in sight for deletion. I wouldn't say it's disruptive, but it's not too far off. HJMitchell You rang? 00:32, 13 May 2009 (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.