Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ukraine, Bern (2nd nomination)

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. Some of the keep !votes can be discounted, but even if I do that, there's still a straightforward disagreement about whether GNG-satisfying sources exist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Bern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Believe it Dosen't meet notiblity requirements under WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Embasies are all notable as are all important missions as are a showing of international relations, just because you dont think its notible doesnt meet threshold for removal Popeter45 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies are not inherently notable. They need to satisfy GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Embasies are all notable. Kholodovsky (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. Some have been deleted, many have been redirected. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Embassies are definitely not inherently notable. This article fails GNG and is simply a list of ambassadors if anything, material should be moved to a List of ambassadors article. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR and our pillars WP:5P5. If embassies are not inherently notable they should be. WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not inherently notable. Some have been deleted, many have been redirected. WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy. The relevant policy is WP:N. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant editing policy was cited WP:PRESERVE Try to fix problems, not delete. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more sources in the Ukrainian version of the article. Also, WP:IAR applies. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not because embassies are automatically notable, (they are presumed notable, but if there are no sources you still can't write the article!) but because there do seem to be enough sources out there in this case to meet GNG. There's another source linked in the dutch version for the opening date in German that can be added. The WP:IAR and WP5 !votes should be ignored as a blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Licks-rocks (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks: why should my ivote be ignored? I have ivoted the opposite of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right. I was using it as shorthand for WP:ATA. I should've just pointed there. There are several options there that I think apply better (just a policy for one), but to summarise my point, I think just saying "AIR applies" is completely meaningless, and it does boil down to just saying "i like it, so damn the rules, I want to keep it around". If you want me to take an argument involving IAR seriously, you'll need to come up with a very good reason why following the rules would lead to undesirable outcomes here, and I'm not seeing any people here doing that.

PS:the opposite of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is WP:ILIKEIT, and it is directly above the former in the list of arguments to avoid. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks: I want to mention that IAR is policy and GNG is only a guideline. Many editors cite essays in AfD. My order of importance regarding AfD is policy, guideline, essay. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, by your logic Wikipedia has basically no rules and is complete anarchy, as IAR means that all policies are effectively invalid. You're basically the Wikipedia equivalent of a sovereign citizen. (Personal attack removed) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole. I have invoked IAR maybe once in 10 years - Ok I am out. I have already over-participated. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:29, 5 May 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.