Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare


 * 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 delete. SpinningSpark 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Embassy of Tanzania, Harare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. and some have been previously deleted. note there is also no bilateral relations article to redirect this to. Also nominating for the same reasons (consulates are even less notable): LibStar (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Embassy of Tanzania, Muscat
 * Consulate General of Oman, Zanzibar
 * High Commission of Tanzania, Maputo
 * Consulate General of Mozambique, Zanzibar
 * Embassy of Tanzania, Bujumbura
 * Consulate General of Burundi, Kigoma


 * Keep – the articles can surely be expanded. They are marked as stub articles at present. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you have presented no argument for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Expanding them would not make them notable. Others of the same ilk: DR Congo Consulate General, Kigoma, Embassy of France, Dar es Salaam, Embassy of Russia, Dar es Salaam, Embassy of the United States, Dar es Salaam, Embassy of Tanzania, Abu Dhabi, Embassy of Tanzania, Addis Ababa, Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing, Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin, Embassy of Tanzania, Brasilia, Embassy of Tanzania, Harare, Embassy of Tanzania, Kinshasa, Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni, Embassy of Tanzania, Moscow, Embassy of Tanzania, Paris, Embassy of Tanzania, Tokyo, Embassy of Tanzania, Washington, D.C., Consulate General of China, Zanzibar, Consulate General of Egypt, Zanzibar, Consulate General of India, Zanzibar, Consulate General of Russia, Zanzibar, High Commission of Tanzania, Abuja, High Commission of Tanzania, Kampala, High Commission of Tanzania, Kigali, High Commission of Tanzania, Kuala Lumpur, High Commission of Tanzania, Lilongwe, High Commission of Tanzania, London, High Commission of Tanzania, Lusaka, High Commission of Tanzania, Nairobi, High Commission of Tanzania, New Delhi, and High Commission of Tanzania, Pretoria. 75.34.101.43 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello AfricaTanz. I'd like to ask you, out of all the active discussions out there, what made you choose this one in particular? Or was it because you keep an eye out for my most recent edits? I'd like to know your (honest) answer. Do you have anything against my contributions on Wikipedia? For the kind attention of the Administrators; Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. This IP is a suspected sock of AfricaTanz. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - crystal-ball-gazing and hoping that these articles might be expanded if/when the subjects become notable isn't a valid reason for keeping them. Why are they notable, what are they notable for? In these cases either the embassy (the institution) or the embassy (the building itself) could be notable but none of them seem seem to be notable in either way. Mergers to relevant "x - x relations" articles (where the relationships are notable) might be okay.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  05:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all not adequately sourced and embassy or consulate buildings are not inherently notable. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all, in favor of various redirect targets, unless and until sources establishing notability of individual embassies are provided (which may occur). For example the Consulate General of Burundi, Kigoma should probably be merged/redirected to List of diplomatic missions of Burundi, a list-article whose notability is not questioned.  And the 3 Tanzanian embassy ones should be merged/redirected to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania.  As noted by User:Stalwart111, any these could be also be merged/redirected to relevant "Country A - Country B relations" type articles, such as Burundi - Tanzania relations, which has been done for a large number of embassy articles brought to AFD previously.  Best to save the edit histories at the redirects and to move/create the relevant articles sooner rather than later.  We don't need to keep seeing new AFDs.  Almost any editor (but not me due to an editing restriction) can just move any such embassy article to a new "Country A - Country B relations" article, or merge it to a pre-existing article of that type, if a more specific target such as List of diplomatic missions of Burundi is not already available.  Topics of the "bilateral relations" type are almost surely notable.  No one should get "credit" for racking up deletions on the embassy articles;  the general resolution for these that is appropriate has been established already. -- do  ncr  am  00:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As in other cases, I'd have no problem with redirecting. Having looked at it, I don't think merging to new "x -x relations" articles is a great option in this instance, few of the relationships being notable in this instance. No point merging to newly created articles, only to delete those almost immediately. But list articles make for great redirect targets and I would support that wherever appropriate.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If this needs to be merged for now, then I'd suggest it be redirected to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Ali Fazal (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: This would have been a clear cut delete, but the merge proposal has left me unsure on this one. More discussion is required.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 12:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 2.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 12:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all in original nomination. Not notable by virtue of being diplomatic missions. Per WP:GEOFEAT any of particular significance may be notable for various reasons, but this must be supported in secondary sources. Merge idea is a fair solution, but there is little to merge except that the entities exist. No prejudice to any editor adding sourced entries to an existing list class article; however, anything more still requires secondary sourcing. Bellerophon talk to me  00:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete These stubs appear to be procedurally built from a specific format and similar "procedurally built" articles have been the point of contention in the community.   If and when the advocate for these pages can make a good justification for inclusion, it would be wise to send them through a review process (such as AFC) to review that the page is reasonably compliant with WP policy/guidelines/best practices. Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge The rational solution is to merge to a list. There's enough information for that ,and more can be added.  DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 13 January 2015 (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.