Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Mexico in Berlin


 * 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The result was   keep – nomination withdrawn after reliable sources were found to establish notability. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Embassy of Mexico in Berlin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Non-notable building, unlikely to be multiple independent sources of information. Aaronw (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep now that multiple independent sources of information have been found about the structure/building pointing out its notability. My thoughts align with Nick Dowling on the "Most diplomatic missions aren't notable just by virtue of being a diplomatic mission". e.g. Consulate General of the United States in Kolkata I have my eyes on next, whereas Embassy of the United States in Athens is independently notable because of its architecture, etc.  As far as not looking for sources for this particular structure, I admit I was remiss in not doing so, but I assumed that whoever wrote the article would have made note of why it was notable, and I did not look further. Aaronw (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I find it hard to believe someone would nominate a diplomatic mission as non-notable. riffic (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep OTOH, I find it horribly easy to believe that someone would nominate a diplomatic mission as non-notable. 8-(  Still a bad idea though. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Can we keep the focus on the article instead of on the nominator? Thanks. Aaronw (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the nominator, it's about the nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N unless sources can be provided to establish the notability of either the building or what occurs within it. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Sources exist and you would think embassies are inherently notable. sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case there's an architectural interest in the building too, but surely a major embassy like this is inherently notable as an embassy, no matter what the building? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Now has sources have been found. I don't see why embassies are automatically notable - most of them are boring office buildings with a smallish number of public servants performing routine diplomatic work in them. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Embassies of major countries in major capitols are notable in general and this one is particularly so due to its architectural design, even according to the New York Times. --Oakshade (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectgly adequate sources now. And of course there would be, as for all other missions of major nations to major countries, at the very least. DGG (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems like the nominator didn't even try to find reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not their job, and there's no need to be impolite like that. References should have been included when the article was created per WP:PROVEIT. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that nominators had to find out if it was non-notable before nominating it for deletion. How was I being impolite? Schuym1 (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While researching is not required for AfD nominators, it is most helpful. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The list of reasons for deletion lists "Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". That sounds like a fairly clear indication that "no sources" isn't a good reason for going to AfD without searching for some first. But even if it weren't policy it would certainly save time for nominators to do a quick Google Books search. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep why would anyone nominate to delete this article (or any other article for that matter) regarding a diplomatic mission to another country? Aquintero (talk) 10:13, 09 August, 2008 (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.