Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Malabo

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 no consensus‎. I'm seeing arguments to Delete all, Redirect/Merge all and some opposing this entire bundled nomination. In this case, I don't think relisting will bring with it an actual consensus but just more opinions on all sides of this discussion. So, I'm closing this discussion and recommend either nominating this articles individually or at least in smaller bunches. With nominations this large, even the most diligent AFD participant can't track down additional sources for over 25 articles over a week and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to do this. So, instead, we often get opinions to "Keep/Delete/Redirect all" where few or none of the articles are carefully analyzed which is not how AFD is intended to work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Malabo[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)

This should be deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Vientiane, and because none of these articles tells us anything about the purported topic, namely the embassy building of the United States in various foreign capitals. Instead, they deal with bilateral relations, and articles covering that phenomenon already exist. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Oppose as listed As these articles are not identical content/products with slightly different titles, hoaxes, or promotional spam, each page should be nominated separately per WP:MULTIAFD – Kjerish (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m sure that would be a very productive use of everyone’s time: forcing editors to vote separately on an endless, identical series of articles, ostensibly about some run-of-the mill buildings from the past few decades, in fact saying nothing about them. Procedure is important, but let’s not abuse others’ time. (At any rate, there is no procedural violation: WP:MULTIAFD addresses “related articles”, and the example does not limit the scope of the guideline.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 00:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as listed - Agree with Kjerish that each embassy needs to be a separate deletion nomination. Don't attempt a blanket of all the embassies. Each one is different, each has a different history. If you want all those deleted, then nominate them correctly. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does the history of Embassy of the United States, Banjul differ from that of Embassy of the United States, Yaoundé? (Not that we’d know from the articles, but you did make the claim.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These embassy articles were created in a spree by 1 editor and padded with mainly information about bilateral relations and not about the embassy itself (or minor details like its address and when it opened). The article creator has also opposed redirect to the relevant bilateral relations so we are here. They all fail GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominee
AaronVick (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all to respective United States–X relations articles. Very little of these is actually about the embassies themselves, most content is about the diplomatic relations. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the articles should be about the embassies themselves, but they focus on foreign relations. The buildings are not notable. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as listed - 28 articles are too many articles for one AfD if they're to be merged and redirected as I believe they should be.
- Comment: these are nicely done small articles, even if they're redundant to the corresponding bilateral relations articles. The author did a nice job.
- Unfortunately, as noted by Biruitorul, these articles are not really about the embassies but mostly about the bilateral relations. Any embassy-specific material can be added as a sentence or two to the bilateral relations article.
  - Delete all. It's not just "unfortunate", it's an excellent reason why these articles should not exist. Athel cb (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The "consensus" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Vientiane was a consensus of just 2 editors: Biruitorul, the nominator, and LibStar. The AfD was closed as a soft deletion due to minimal participation. So I don't see that AfD as a useful precedent.
- Some embassy articles contain useful bilateral relations material not found in the existing bilateral relations articles. "Merge/redirect" makes sense. It will take considerable effort to merge this stuff into the 28 bilateral relations articles. Who's going to do this work? The closing administrator? That's too much to ask.

This big AfD needs to be broken into smaller, more manageable chunks. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding your first point, while writing “nice” articles is certainly to be commended, that aspect must come after WP:GNG is satisfied: “a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. Given that the articles don’t even pretend to do that, we should delete or redirect without much further discussion or agonizing about the size of the nomination. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that "The author did a nice job" is irrelevant to notability. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I did not say that nice articles establish notability -- I merely complemented the author.
  
  "Nice" or not, there remains useful content about bilateral relations that should be merged to existing bilateral relations articles rather than trashed. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. @Biruitorul, if you're personally committed to doing all the follow-up work of merging, redirecting and template repair for 28 articles, I'm open to supporting this big AfD. Otherwise, let's do this one smaller chunk at a time. There's no rush.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - - In fairness, I did redirect each one, but the article creator me. If the consensus is to redirect, I pledge to perform that task. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are dozens and dozens of articles about the New Zealand one in local press. https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8371842/60m-to-blast-proof-US-embassy-complex https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/92338186/online-bomb-threats-prompted-us-embassy-evacuation-during-fbi-directors-visit https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10735122/US-embassy-alert-over-suspicious-package https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/66771529/shoe-boxes-spark-bomb-scare-at-us-embassy https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapi-mana-news/8779653/Chauffeur-tells-nuclear-story etc, etc, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there have been a couple of bomb scares and that it’s had its security enhanced does not actually make a building notable; that’s entirely trivial coverage. Still, what about the other 27 or so articles I’ve nominated? You haven’t addressed those. Were I to strike the Wellington embassy and nominate it separately, would your position here change? — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If the US Embassy in New Zealand is notable, that illustrates a problem I've seen really big multi-AfDs - how do you handle individual exceptions to deletions? Is there some established way of doing that? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Wellington is where that particular discussion has been moved. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, very flawed nom, spot check indicates at least some of these meet GNG. // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, nominating for deletion a series of articles that a) have nothing to do with the alleged subject and b) duplicate content found elsewhere, is not at all flawed. Can you cite an example of one that meets GNG? — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these appear to be WP:CFORKs of the bilateral relationship articles. CMD (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2023 (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.