Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations

WP:DSBILATERAL

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bilateral relations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bilateral relations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bilateral relations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Bilateral relations

Embassy of South Korea, Dublin

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

Article based on primary sources, fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Korea, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Poland, Dublin

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

Marked for notability concerns since December 2020. The only sources provided is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Poland. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bùi Đình Dĩnh

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

Have been unable to locate significant coverage in secondary sources, despite looking through several articles in Vietnamese. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Vietnam, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 13:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. I found a source like this but it's a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chindia

AfDs for this article:

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

Could be made a sentence or two on China–India relations, without its own article. At present it's largely just describing China–India relations and is a WP:DEFINITION page. It doesn't qualify as WP:WORDISSUBJECT. seefooddiet (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and India. seefooddiet (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. A random mix of facts that doesn't warrant a wikipedia article. Also, controversial comments such as 'Europe is looking towards China to lead economic recovery' should not be supported by just a random news article. SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Washington, D.C.

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

Fails WP:ORG. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laos–United States relations.--User:Namiba 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Laos–United States relations as usual. The building is, I believe, a contributing property to a NRHP district, but there's nothing much here about the building and in any case this can be handled through redirection. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unsure of what there is to merge? The address of the embassy? Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mali, Moscow

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

One primary source in the article after 16 years. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mali–Russia relations almost all the embassies are not notable as they often don't have any reliable source talking about them, which in this case this. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Another embassy article created by a now-blocked user. Nothing really to merge. AusLondonder (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Venezuela, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. No indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, just like every single other one of these articles about embassies and high commissions that have been brought to AfD or PROD recently. There is no point wasting community time at AfD, just redirect them - none of the PRODs that I've redirected have been reverted, none of the AfDs I've been aware of have closed as anything other than redirect when that option has been presented (one was deleted after nobody suggested it in the AfD, I recreated it as a redirect and that hasn't been challenged). Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these articles were previously deleted at AfD. I don't understand why everything must now be a redirect. I personally don't think someone searching Wikipedia for "High Commission of Seychelles, London" is going to be well-served by being taken to a lengthy list of diplomatic missions, have to scroll all the way down to Seychelles and simply be given an address. I think that list, which has no secondary sources, completely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Venezuela, Houston

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

Consulates are rarely notable, this one lacks in-depth secondary source coverage to prove otherwise. Only coverage appears to relate to a minor incident where the consulate moved location without permission. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Venezuela, and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that consulates are rarely notable. The minor incident doesn't really add to notability. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Džundev

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

Diplomat, so not automatically notable. Tagged for notability for 9 years (which is how I found it). I can't find any sources but primary or non-significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it's not expanded nor added sources. Xegma(talk) 03:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits is not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomats, including ambassadors, are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC. There's no evidence this subject does. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Eritrea, Washington, D.C.

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

PROD tag removed due to concern about removing "national embassies without a discussion". Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. Effectively just a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eritrea–United States relations: No WP:RS sources I found from a quick Google News. Ping me if anyone finds one Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eritrea-United States relations: Most embassies by themselves aren't notable, but would make a good addition to the relations article between the guest and host country. Hlsci (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Romania, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Romania, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canada-Romania relations: Most embassies aren't notable by themselves but make a good addition to the two countries' relations. Hlsci (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, N'Djamena

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

Article lacking secondary sources specifically about the embassy. One source is about the death of the president of Chad, another is about various countries reducing their diplomatic presence due to fighting. Does not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First source is primary, third is not significant coverage. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Tel Aviv

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

Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Israel, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to notable topic Israel–Moldova relations based on this article, with addition of copied content from Foreign relations of Israel#Moldova. Whizkin (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whizkin, Israel–Moldova relations is a redirect and should appear as a green link. It's not an appropriate page to Merge ontent to unless you want to revert the Redirection. But you should really check out the target articles before you recommend them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was fully aware of that, I am proposing to make it into an article. Whizkin (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if anything is salvageable. Andre🚐 18:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I have made a bold edit to create new standalone article Israel–Moldova relations. Therefore I change my !vote to Redirect to Israel–Moldova relations.Whizkin (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Eritrea, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a {{R to list entry}} per all the other articles in about embassies in London that have been prodded/nominated at AfD recently. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer deletion to redirection? Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per and as described by Thryduulf. Dan • ✉ 02:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Dublin

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

Based on primary sources. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and improve. Rather than delete. While it is likely true that the embassy (the office/building/institution/whatever) doesn't have independent notability, there is plenty of coverage of Ireland-Ukraine relations generally. So, personally, I'd suggest that the article be increased in scope slightly. And moved to Ukraine–Ireland relations. Similar to Ireland–Russia relations. Or Spain–Ukraine relations. Or others. With a redirect left behind. If that's "too much", the title should (at the very least) be retargeted to List of diplomatic missions of Ukraine. Personally don't think that outright deletion is the best approach here. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Ireland-Ukraine relations are a notable topic, which is quite possibly true, then an article on that subject can easily be created. AusLondonder (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. There is already, on a second review, a title on the subject. At Ireland–Ukraine relations. So we wouldn't need to create an (additional) article on that subject. We'd just need to merge/redirect the content (on the embassy - which effectively covers foreign relations as a whole anyway) to the existing title. Personally I think that's the best course of action. Rather than deleting (and then effectively recreating) the content/topic/title. Guliolopez (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but concurring with the "move and improve" of User:Guliolopez - consider creating Ukraine-Ireland relations and move this into there with more on the relations rather than the embassy. I did find this from the Kyiv Post - it's part 2 so presumably part 1 also has useful info. And I assume that Dublin newspapers will also cover the topic. That seems much more important than the embassy. Lamona (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if salvageable Andre🚐 18:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. There is a redirect at Ireland-Ukraine relations so there would have to be a different target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Ljubljana

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

Previous attempt at redirect was opposed and previous PROD tag removed. No secondary sources. Promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Anything useful can be covered at India–Slovenia relations. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Slovenia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely based on primary sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of China, Chongjin

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

Consulates are rarely notable. I'm certainly not seeing how this one is, with lines such as "The consulate expressed "deep condolences" after Kim Jong-il's death in 2011". Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and North Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that consulates are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in North Korea#Consulates general, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one so far argues to keep the article. Whether to delete or redirect, though, could use more input. Why keep the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Berlin

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

Unreferenced article that merely is a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some article about German-Moldovan relations, don't know which one, and salvage Andre🚐 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shearman

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

Proposed deletion tag removed on the basis of "several sources" being present. This consists of two primary sources from the British government, an entry in the unreliable Who's Who, the subjects Twitter page and a brief mention of his appointments in a list of British diplomats. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Uganda, and Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Could not find significant third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CVO, a high honour which has generally been considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. They're not handed out in cereal packets. A handful are awarded every year. Confirmation that he was appointed CVO in 2003. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. I'm sure you're very well aware that that's not really the case. The media generally has little interest in diplomats. Once again, that's largely the point of ANYBIO #1. It balances out people who are notable in real if not especially sexy jobs against media obsession with pop cultural figures. If clauses like this didn't exist then Wikipedia would become ever more focused on pop culture and even less on being a proper encyclopaedia. It's heading in that direction now, sadly, and nominations like this just speed up the rot. He's not a historic figure is a meaningless statement, especially given he's still alive. What does that mean? I assume it simply means you don't think he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to have a look at some British ambassadors to see whether this is accurate. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. Menna Rawlings, ambassador to France, DCMG CVO. Karen Pierce, ambassador to the US, DCMG. Nigel Casey, ambassador to Russia, CMG MVO. Julia Longbottom, ambassador to Japan, CMG. Jill Gallard, ambassador to Germany, CMG CVO. Martin Harris, ambassador to Ukraine, OBE CMG. Alex Ellis, ambassador to Spain, KCMG. Notice a peculiar pattern here? A walled garden of articles, some with zero secondary sources (completely unacceptable for a BLP), of British diplomats awarded honours by their employer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jones (British diplomat)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but should have closed as delete given AfD is not a simple headcount, with strength of argument supposed to account for something. Two editors favoured deleting, and two favoured keeping (including the creator, who cited the unreliable Who's Who as a keep rationale). Source analysis in previous AfD established Jones lacks significant coverage specifically about him in multiple published secondary sources and therefore fails WP:BASIC. The current article has not been improved since last AfD and instead still consists of three sources which do not contribute to notability. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this which doesn't look too bad but I don't really know how it works for ambassadors. There may be more but I am unsure what exactly counts for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are good as well. This is also a bit helpful but not as much. I was able to find this from just Switzerland and I didn't even try to search for the other places. Again, not very experienced with ambassadors, but I think this is GNG now, especially with the the Le Temps source which is the Romandy's newspaper of record. So keep.

@CFA Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank only Switzerland's inexplicably well digitized press. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source above is good, but I couldn't find anything else. Ambassadors have to meet WP:NBASIC like everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage exists ~~but I'm inclined to delete unless some is found.~~ C F A 💬 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage found provides enough coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX There are three keep votes and no deletes. Is that not enough consensus? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, has AusLondonder turned into chopped liver while I wasn't looking? Either way, I don't see any reason to hurry. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Bratislava

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

Based entirely on primary sources. No third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Slovakia. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find one source discussing a dance program they did. Also, there could be non-English sources that are hard to find.

That said, Delete provisionally: No good sources listed and I am unable to locate any. The dance program could maybe go in the Bratislava or Indian Foreign Relations pages? But of course, Wikipedia does not have to cover every dance program. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many of these embassy articles created at a time with less stringent enforcement of notability requirements, this fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which contains all the encyclopaedic information about the embassy. The list of ambassadors should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate target but I haven't immediately found one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kazakhstan, Ottawa

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

Article merely confirms it exists with its own website as the only source. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kazakhstan, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --92.77.57.69 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada–Kazakhstan relations: fails GNG. C F A 💬 22:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is almost completely devoid of content, effectively just a directory listing. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect or opposition to one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Japan, Kyiv

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

Fails GNG. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, most of these are used to confirm previous ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can you confirm what kind of WP:BEFORE search you conducted and how you went about identifying and assessing any Ukrainian and Japanese language sources as part of that? DCsansei (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: looks notable enough to me, and iI see sources in the History section. A redirect to the list of diplomatic missions of Japan or to Uk-Jp relations is totally warranted anyway. But I am really not convinced by the rationale of this nomination (especially when the majority of the sources are NOT about the ambassadors). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated the article, majority of sources were about the ambassadors [1]. This has subsequently changed with new additions. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I should havec checked that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there additional assessment of the newly added sources? And does LibStar's original nomination still stand? If not, we can close this, but if so we can continue to discuss whether this article meets the general notability guidelines
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few sources which should take this mission over the GNG and see plenty more. Appears that there was no WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources. I'm not competent in Ukranian but my guess is that there would be additional sources found if a WP:BEFORE was done including Ukranian sources. DCsansei (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Moscow

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

Zero secondary sources. No indication whatsoever of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD featured multiple false claims that "all embassies are inherently notable". AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Laos–Russia relations as is the usual outcome for these non-notable embassy buildings. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is possible that the building might have notability beyond its current function. Per Izvestii︠a︡: Vol. 13. Narodna biblioteka "Kiril i Metodiĭ". 1973. p. 538 at the same address there would have been the Czechoslovak embassy, but so far I haven't been able to decipher the chronology. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so ru.wiki has an article on the building per se, at ru:Особняк А. К. Ферстер — Михельсона as a historical architectural monument. I'd say that as such the notability can be established. Furthermore the article can be fleshed out with a bit of history of the embassy. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need sources, the Russian Wikipedia article is lacking them. It does not establish notability for this article. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The Russian article is lacking sources so hard to argue for notability on the basis of that. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important for Laos - Russia relationship Cantab12 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "important" is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mangoe. No extant sourcing discussed to warrant keeping in the above comments. Redirection is the preferred alternative to deletion. czar 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. It can be redirected to Laos–Russia relations. The notability of the building, as mentioned above, does not establish notability for this article ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to rescue at the moment and very weak. Alon9393 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]