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. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 embassy closures[edit]

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

Fails per WP:NOTNEWS Embassy closures seem to be routine following terrorist threats and in countries that are unstable. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received a significant amount of coverage from literally numerous reliable secondary sources all over the planet. Literally thousands of news articles and in depth analysis. — Cirt (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It had a splash in the news and that was it, are we going to make an article everytime an embassy closes by a country for whatever reason around the globe? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something, possibly AQAP's page or something (struck, see below). WP:NOTNEWS applies somewhat, but given the press time it's received it should be given a mention somewhere (if not in its own article), and is not an inconceivable search term either. Ansh6 6 6 04:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like to place things up for deletion when I don't have to, I had looked into possible merge articles but nothing came to mind as most embassy closures are a result of turmoil in the country or countries involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was more thinking, if the plot itself gets coverage and is placed somewhere, this could be added. Right now, it seems like there is no context for this anywhere, so delete. Can be added in later, nothing lost. Ansh6 6 6 06:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 as the closure was a planed event and the article makes no claim to significance. As an aside also fails WP:NOTNEWS LGA _talk^edits 09:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Write the article first. Not a single citation is currently in the article. I can see how somebody can make a WP:A7 argument as there is no credible claim to significance without citations. I would switch from Delete if somebody were willing to write a WP:Heymann! Otherwise, delete, write it, and resubmit it through proper channels after an article deletion. Crtew (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that the article is anything more than a news splash. If we cover everything that gets "literally numerous reliable secondary sources", Wikipedia'll still be reporting on a whole lot of things that are non-encyclopedic news phenomena. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This event does not have lasting significance and should not have its own article. Andrew³²⁷ 15:49, 19 August 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.