Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of India, Brussels


 * 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 Keep per policy based rationale this passes GNG based on sources provided. The article has also been improved significantly. (nac) Valoem   talk   contrib  08:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Embassy of India, Brussels

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Belgium–India relations are notable; embassies themselves are often not-notable buildings. Nothing in this article to lead one to think this one is in itself notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * delete the article merely confirms it exists. Otherwise it's actually about foreign relations which is covered in other articles. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about a building. The Embassy of India in Brussels serves as India's Embassy to Belgium, Luxembourg, as well as India's Mission to European Union. If there can be article on a Mission like Mission of Canada to the European Union or an article on an Embassy like Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels, then surely the article in question deserves to be there, coz it's an Embassy as well as a Mission. As far as the article is concerned, I'l be making some changes to it in next few minutes to make it more deserving. Netstar1 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I beg to differ from u. What you are saying is something like "I will delete the wikipedia article on India, even if all/most other countries have dedicated articles on Wikipedia". There are hundreds of articles on embassies on Wikipedia, so please dont say that articles embassies are often non-notable "buildings", that dont deserve to have articles. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there so that garbage articles are not created on minor pretexts, and I donot think that my article is garbage. I believe that the topic (India's Embassy to Belgium, Luxembourg and European Union) is important enough for an article to be created on it. And I think the matter that I've written on this article is decent enough. I've made some changes to the article since u nominated it for deletion. I request u that some other established editor shud be allowed to decide on this matter. Regards. Netstar1 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And many embassy articles have been deleted too. LibStar (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and more references are available. Keep with a 'needs help' banner. VanEman (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE and all the references are primary. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Merge and redirect with the articles written on the same subject that the author has mentioned above, eg. Indian Embassy to Luxembourg, Inidan Embassy to EU Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of diplomatic missions of India. North America1000 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GEOBIAS on display:
 * Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Oslo (Withdrawn by nominator as it was heading for speedy keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Dublin (keep)
 * There are dozens and dozens of articles on British, American, Canadian etc embassies. Why are the ones from Global South countries always targeted? AusLondonder (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * because they fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Under your strict interpretation, they fail as well. Systemic bias is the reason. AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You've failed to actually demonstrate any sources to fulfil WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per precedent of Category:Diplomatic missions of the United States (90 pages) and Category:Diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (50 pages) AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. many embassy Articles have been deleted or redirected. can you point to actual coverage of this embassy?  LibStar (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No US ones that I am aware of. AusLondonder (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You've failed to actually demonstrate any sources to fulfil WP:GNG for this embassy. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You've had 9 days to find any evidence of coverage. Presume you can't. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of India. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see where notability has been demonstrated. As already noted, the specified sources fail to do so. Saying "it's important" or "some other embassies have articles" does not show notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: You guys are using WP:INDAFD to help with verification and notability, right?--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think embassies are generally speaking notable. News hits come up for them too, e.g., , , , . The coverage is all somewhat in passing, but I think there is enough of it that it all adds up to notability SJK (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * none of the 5 sources you supply show the Embassy as a subject of the source and thus is not in depth coverage. All the sources are about incidents where the Embassy had commented or been involved as part of their usual role . GNG specifically requires Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail . These sources do not. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also discusses their significance in Indian history: "The establishment of the first institutional link came through the opening of an Indian Mission in Brussels in January 1962 in an effort to—in the words of the then Indian ambassador to Brussels—'contain the threat and utilize the opportunity for wider benefit'" (p. 267) SJK (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This source discusses them in detail: SJK (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And this source also directly discusses the Indian Embassy in Brussels. SJK (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire 10th chapter of describes the authors experience as the Indian ambassador at this embassy (1989–1990). As such, it spends a far amount of time discussing events which took place at the embassy during his time there. SJK (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2016 (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.