Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of India, Kyiv


 * 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. Apart from the nomination, all the contributions here have argued to keep the article, and the content in the article does pass verifiablity standards, so I cannot see a policy-based reason to overrule the will of the community. However, the current content of the article is really thin including some very obvious things true of embassies in general (e.g. "Ambassador is in charge of the embassy"). The fact that numerous sources were offered during the discussion might indicate an intent to expand the article. Unless that happens, merging with the India–Ukraine relations appears to be quite justified. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Embassy of India, Kyiv

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. 2 of the sources are primary, a third source only refers to the embassy in 1 line. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep unclear what WP:BEFORE search yielded, (to be fair, one can search High Commission of India/Embassy in Ukraine, Kiev or Kyiv and there's lot of noise), but I found the following:


 * Four secondary sources and counting ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Four secondary sources and counting ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Four secondary sources and counting ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Four secondary sources and counting ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Four secondary sources and counting ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment These individual AfD’s argue either two things, the notability of individual embassies or the underlying question whether all embassies are inherently notable or not. There are approximately 15,000 embassies in the world and the question boils down to whether that’s too many for Wikipedia and or whether the X-Y relations e.g. India–Ukraine relations pages are adequate. Absent significant coverage, I do expect many such embassy articles will remain stubs, but don’t see that as a problem. It’s structured information with strong potential for long term expansion. If a country/mission were to collapse/merge like German Democratic Republic I could see the argument for merging articles less likely to be expanded, but that’s not the case with these live institutions. For the sake of saving everyone’s time at AfD let’s have a proper discussion about fate of embassy articles in general for example here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject International relations ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like others, the user states it to pass GNG test like articles. Utkarsh555 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Keep Thanks to sources found by Shushugah. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. While there's no presumption of notability for embassies generally, this particular embassy appears to pass WP:GNG when accounting for the sources presented by . — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)