Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ukraine, Bern


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Embassy of Ukraine, Bern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. there needs to be significant coverage of the activities of the embassy or the building it is located in. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No sign of notability. It's in an ordinary building, nothing interesting happened there. The mere existence of an embassy doesn't mean there should be an article. Embassies are generally only notable if they're of architectural, historical or political importance, e.g. Embassy of the United States, London. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication that the topic has coverage that would allow passing WP:N. The information about diplomatic relations would belong in an article about Switzerland–Ukraine relations, but that article doesn't exist yet.  Sandstein   15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect or keep. I strongly suspect that coverage exists, but in their absence, there's nothing wrong with this title per se.  Without sources, this should be redirected to the Switzerland-Ukraine relations article.  Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * if there is coverage, please show WP:MUSTBESOURCES. otherwise this is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read my entire statement instead of stopping at the first comma. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read the entire statement, you can't say "or keep" without a solid reason. simply saying "strongly suspect coverage" doesn't cut it. I read you argument as solely "redirect" as you can't find evidence to support keep. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet GNG and contains little than a list of ambassadors Smirkingman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (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.