Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Greece, Kiev

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 Merge and redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Greece. This is also in line with previous AfD nominations of embassies. Note that Embassy of Greece, Kiev is the only article affected by the decision, since others were not properly nominated (no template etc). Feel free to renominate.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Greece, Kiev[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. previous recent AfDs have shown there is no inherent notability to embassies. this article is merely a listing of location and non notable ambassadors.

also nominating:

Embassy of Italy, Kiev
Embassy of Pakistan, Kiev
Embassy of Algeria, Kiev
Embassy of Denmark, Kiev LibStar (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Greece, etc. or Keep. No need to delete. Pburka (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no need to delete" is not a reason for keeping. you haven't demonstrated how notability is met. WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Afd directs us to consider alternative to deletion. I suggested that such an alternative was appropriate in this case, but I have no bias against keeping the article. Pburka (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in order to support keep, you need to demonstrate how a notability criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to express myself more clearly. I oppose the proposed deletion as unnecessary. I'll be happy whether the article is merged or kept. I have no bias against keeping the article. If other editors should express opinions indicating that the article should be kept, my suggestion to redirect should not in any way impede that. Pburka (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate locations per precedent from previous embassy AfDs (I don't remember and am too lazy to look up at the moment). User:LibStar, would anyone complain if you just redirected them? I don't think a single non-notable embassy article has actually been deleted, instead all redirected. Ansh666 07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

several has been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Gabon, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Ankara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Latvia, Kiev. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those had no redirect targets. I meant the ones with valid redirect targets. Ansh666 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While these embassies may not qualify for stand-alone articles, content within them would enhance the following related articles.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions for the relevant countries. Finnegas (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CHEAP. In the past, we either keep or try to send the information to a target. That way it keeps the article history and allows for a WP:REFUND. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 16 July 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.