Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina Trade and Cultural Office


 * 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 no consensus. No clear consensus despite two relists. No prejudice to renomination in few months if sourcing hasn't improved. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Argentina Trade and Cultural Office

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. Embassies which this is a de facto one are not inherently notable. Gnews turns up 1 hit when I searched English (actually a Chinese story) and 2 Hits in Spanish. 1 which only mentioned the office in 1 line. Also as a side point, I hardly think the tall tower in article is entire office. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  14:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is the de facto embassy between two countries that have no formal ties. See also Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Argentina which is the counterpart to this article.  These represent the only two formal organizations between the two countries, and communications is between just these two buildings.  There are more sources on the sister article, but these are two sides of the same coin, one can not exist without the other.  WP:N isn't a lot of help on these kinds of articles, but there are sources for the pair, and common sense says we should keep.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you're arguing for inherent notability when there isn't any. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed that a similar article already exists, which is Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Argentina. Perhaps a redirect or merger is better. I'm dumb, nevermind. Keep. BTW, I found a Link (in portuguese) with information about that embassy in Taipei. So at the very least, it does exist. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * existing is not the same as being notable. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * comment none of the keep !voters have given evidence of significant third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.