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 into List of diplomatic missions of Colombia. Note that Warsaw was withdrawn; Bern, The Hague, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Abu Dabi were actually never AFDéd and thus can not be a part of this closure. They have to be renominated again. For Cairo, Pretoria, Beirut, Jakarta, Stockholm, Brussels and Lisbon, whereas opinions are diverse, the consensus is that they are not individually notable. List of diplomatic missions of Colombia, as suggested, seems to be a good place to merge them into. Help with merging will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Cairo[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show coverage. all these series of articles have the same generic text of what the embassy does and lists its address. also nominating:

*Embassy of Colombia, Warsaw

LibStar (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same filler text with the address, name of the two countries, and text describing what any embassy is supposed to do. Nothing notable about any of the embassies: nothing newsworthy, no citations asserting notability beyond mere existence. Richard Ye^talk 08:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I disagree. While the articles may effectively be stubs at the moment, that's not necessarily a reason to delete them. Certainly some on that list (Tokyo, New Dehli etc.) will be major embassies of the Colombia and should be retained. I notice that a similar deletion proposal has not been made for US/British Embassies, and I think that sadly reflects some sort of bias on the English-lang wiki. In my opinion, they have enough info to make them distinctive (they're not full copies after all) and, judging by the articles on other country's embassies on wiki, there is certainly precedent for them being "notable".---Brigade Piron (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Many embassy articles have been deleted which shows no inherent notability. You haven't even supplied one source to demonstrate coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree on that first point, but this is far too arbitrary. I do not speak Spanish; I do not know anything about Colombian diplomatic relations. What I will say is that, while a hypothetical embassy of Colombia in Monaco might not be the most notable embassy, some of the ones in that list are major postings. In that light, I'm not sure that you could point to any WP guidelines to say that, once their existence is established, other sources are needed too. Embassies, after all, are rarely written about and I imagine that little exists on these anyway outside Spanish. By the way, a piece on the talk page of WP:Colombia might be nice too. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies rarely written about may mean they do not mean WP:GNG. the onus is on keep voters to find sources. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I agree with the argument that, because recent AfDs have resulted in the deletion of embassy pages, they are presumed to be not notable. Other recent AfDs for embassies have resulted in 'keep' decisions (here for example). Since this is a mass nomination, it might be worth bringing up first the the International relations wikiproject, or discussing on Wikipedia talk:Notability. TheBlueCanoe 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the main reason for deletion is lack of third party coverage. if someone can provide evidence i will happily withdraw my nomination. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question LibStar, have yiu yourself check in sources from the two countries involved in every case to make sure there is no available sourcing? DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes and no significant coverage of individual embassies found. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All - to the relevant "Colombia-X relations" pages. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Polish embassy is at least briefly mentioned in Jan Patryas; Henryk Szczepaniak; Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych (1979). Stosunki dyplomatyczne Polski 1944-1981 r: Ameryka (1944-1978). Pań. Wydawn. Naukowe. Retrieved 29 April 2013. and Krzysztof Szczepanik; Anna Herman-Łukasik; Barbara Janicka (2007). Stosunki dyplomatyczne Polski: informator. Ameryka Północna i Południowa 1918-2007. Wydawn. Askon. ISBN 978-83-7452-026-3. Retrieved 29 April 2013. (books on the history of Polish diplomacy). I can see snippets only so I am not sure how extensive the embassy is; what I found would definitely merit a strong keep for the relevant relations article. I'd like to see a comment from a Spanish speaker about whether this embassy is mentioned in Colombian sources (Spanish name may be "Embajada del Colombia en Polonia"?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the Warsaw embassy but believe all others qualify for delete. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps nobody else who can read the relevant non-English sources have bothered to do some research... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Individual embassy is rarely notable. Oviously we have cases that have been newsworthy (ie the US embassy in Iran) which therefore merit articles of their own, but these are merely extensions of Columbia-country x relations and should not have individual entries (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Bwilkins. Miniapolis 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment many people have suggested merge to the relevant bilateral article. But in most cases, this does not exist. Therefore, merge is not a feasible option. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if bilateral relations page exists, Delete otherwise. All of these pages are boilerplate and have no indication of why these embassies are notable. Of course, if something notable about these embassies were to be added to the articles, I would change my vote to Keep. Transcendence (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge those without notable sources per Transcendence - or maybe merge to List of diplomatic missions of Colombia? I think most of them exist there already anyways. Ansh666 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of diplomatic missions of Colombia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 4 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.