Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, London

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 move to Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations. We can not really merge into an inexistent article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, London[edit]

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

Non-notable embassy. No claim of notability. No independent references in with depth coverage. Nothing obvious in google with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm always looking for additional info on specific legations as so many don't have their own websites. That said, this doesn't really provide it. BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete embassies are not inherently notable. And this article merely confirms its existence. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could no longer care Hello, I'm the guy who made all these UK embassy pages. I'd like to thank you for your consistent attempts to delete the pages I made as it has more-or-less completely put me off contributing to Wikipedia and as such I've resolved to find better ways to use my free time. As such feel free to do what you like with the embassy pages as I could no longer care and have better things to do. sdrawkcab —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 26 January 2014‎

Why is there no article at Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations? Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, that I find staggering. We have an article about the non-notable embassy but not about diplomatic relations between the two countries between which there were one, two, three wars and a treaty all before 1920! And everything since! Crazy stuff. Stalwart111 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the embassy itself as a physical building or as an institution. To sdrawkcab - if you have a particular interest in these things, maybe start with the diplomatic articles rather than articles about non-notable landmarks around London's suburbs. It takes quite a bit for a building to be notable but relations between two countries like that is a no-brainer. Stalwart111 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I put in an extra sentence; maybe it contributes to the notability of the building.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The small article does not purport to say very much. What little it says seems well sourced and might satisfy the curiosity of somebody, somewhere. (Indeed, it satisfies my curiosity. I'm fascinated by the sight of conspicuously lavish expenditures on diplomacy by impoverished nations.) It's not promotional and has little risk of becoming promotional. Yes, as Stalwart111 says, it is indeed absurd that WP has this article but not Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations; however, for this imbalance we should blame the lack of the relations article rather than the existence of the embassy article (which of course does nothing to discourage creation of Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations). -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

satisfying curiosity is not a criterion for notability. the sources are rather routine, one confirms the embassy exists, the other confirms it has been there since 1922, the other says it was closed for a few decades and the other confirms a former resident. all WP:ROUTINE. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are probably right. If only it were not in London but instead somewhere in, say, the Star Trek "franchise", then it would probably be "notable". Meanwhile, I'm adding the occasional drib or drab to this reality-based article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update Freshly added: admittedly brief yet authoritative commentary on the architecture -- admittedly not of this particular single building, but of a small set of buildings of which this is clearly shown to be a member. (Some others survive, but some have subsequently been demolished.) - Hoary (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations (or rename if that article doesn't yet exist). There is no evidence so far that the building is notable, or even that the London institution is notable. However, the two countries have a long history of relations (see Invasions of Afghanistan#British_invasions) about which a huge amount could be written. Per WP:PRESERVE, this material should form part of that article, and in this case should form the start of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 6 February 2014 (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.