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The result was nomination withdrawn as now redirected. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mexico, Prague

[edit]
Embassy of Mexico, Prague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. No bilateral article to redirect to either. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Kitts and Nevis–United Kingdom relations and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations as examples. That said, the relationship in question would need to be notable - not just created as a non-notable redirect target for the sake of inexplicable inclusionism. St★lwart111 22:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Okay then move this article to Mexico and Czech Republic relations or Czech and Mexico relations or whatever is any other okay title for a bilateral relations article, and develop. For example, this google book source is a 2008 report on Czech relations with a section on Mexico and there will be others in:
And this leaves a redirect from the Embassy of Mexico, Prague topic, and mention that embassy in the article, or not. Develop a separate article again about the embassy if/when historic nature of the building or whatever comes to light. This is best resolution of an AFD once started, not to delete the contribution(s) and not to offend the contributor(s). IMHO the AFD was not necessary as this is a known better solution and one could move the article without requiring multiple editors' attention and all other costs involved in an AFD. --doncram 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, mention Václav Havel's 1990 visit to Mexico which was the first Czechoslovak government head's visit to any Latin American country, per this google book source found in Mexico Czechoslovakia relations search and so on. --doncram 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and I'd be happy with that solution once that article is created. So many of these ended as no consensus because they deserved to be deleted but nobody could be bothered to create the articles to redirect them to. I created a couple of them and still the AFDs ended as no consensus because people couldn't even be bothered contributing to the discussion, even when pinged to reconsider previous opinions. I'll support a redirection/merger once that target article exists. Until then, this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria and should be deleted as no genuine alternative to deletion exists. St★lwart111 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i boldly moved the article to Mexico-Czech relations and put in low effort to make it an article, including making the bland, meaningless assertion that relations between the two countries are "important". Importance is not defined. Sorry, Stalwart111, i expect this is less than what you want, but I think this resolves it, as a "target article" exists and is a valid topic. So, go ahead and tag the article as inadequate in various ways, but IMHO this resolves the AFD, which can be closed "KEEP" ratifying the current article. --doncram 13:58, 7 September 2014 (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.
More