Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Belarus, Ottawa

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 delete. The consensus is that these articles do not pass WP:GNG and thus in the present form can not exist in the English Wikipedia. The keep votes, unfortunately, are not based on the policies. No projudice against redirect creation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belarus, Ottawa

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

fails WP:GNG. recent AfDs indicate embassies are not inherently notable. Those wanting to keep must show coverage. Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to their corresponding bilateral relations articles -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Iketsi (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having these these articles does no harm. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if there is any appropriate guideline for these type of articles, but going with the other articles of the same category, I don't think there is any fault in keeping these articles. P.S I'm not trying to reason WP:ALLORNOTHING! --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. could you try by actually demonstrating existence of sources to meet WP:ORG. rather than WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point, I'm not sure about what is the main criteria to keep these articles, WP:GNG is not applicable to every article, while they also don't seem to fall under WP:ORG. Moreover, I have never seen any deep media coverage on any embassy in the world. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided zero reason for why these articles are notable. And zero sources. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but could the different embassies maybe be folded into a single page on embassies in Ottawa? Gmkeros (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such a page already exists: List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. Ravendrop 23:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It provides little encyclopedic information about the embassy and basically explains what an embassy is. An article about embassies in Ottawa would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I concur with Robert McClenon. --Iketsi (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nothing notable and no independent, in-depth sources for any of these. Fails WP:GNG. Ravendrop 23:48, 5 May 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.