Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Uruguay, London


 * 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   merge to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations. j⚛e deckertalk 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Embassy of Uruguay, London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organisation. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. all the article states is its address. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now, and COMMENT / REQUEST: Hey, there are a bunch of London embassy articles created in last six months or so, linked from navigation template Diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom.  The Afghanistan one went up for AFD previously, now Uruguay one.  Many of these are stubs and they should be developed further.  Many are located in historically notable buildings, whose historic status will establish notability as I know has been done for various embassies in Washington, D.C., USA that were put up for AFD and eventually kept.  The result of Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, London was that the article was moved to more fundamentally needed article Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations.  Possibly others should be similarly moved.  How about an organized cleanup drive based from somewhere appropriate, WikiProject England(?), rather than  embark on a bunch of AFDs which drag in persons who need not be concerned.  AFD is not for cleanup.  Many of these are going to be notable.  Where to proceed, instead of here?  If we can find some host to a cleanup drive, would the nominator withdraw this? -- do  ncr  am  01:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Many of these are going to be notable" is quite a claim from you. Some have been deleted or redirected. This is an opportune time to test notability. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, i rather expect many embassies in London will have chosen suitable buildings that happen to be historic and notable on their own, as has happened for embassies in Washington, D.C., and i don't know how many should likely be moved to a relations-type alternative title, and some will be completely well-enough covered by general references to meet wp:GNG, and so on.  Let's not "test" them all at AFD. -- do  ncr  am  02:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't create them, LibStar, in case that is what you are assuming. I just came upon this at AFD, and I searched and found the Afghanistan one's AFD.  And I happen to have worked previously on editing some U.S. historic site articles on buildings in D.C. that became embassies, and one or two were AFD'd and Kept, if I recall correctly. -- do  ncr  am  02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. At a minimum, merging into a new section in United Kingdom–Uruguay relations, and redirecting, would be superior to deleting.  That would be compatible with decision on Afghanistan one.  I voted "Keep" for now, above. -- do  ncr  am  02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations seems like an entirely sensible option. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - would all these borderline notable embassy stubs warrant creation of a List of foreign embassies in London? Ivanvector (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * there is a similar List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations - either the institution or the building needs to be notable. Neither is. Some embassies in London will be notable in their own right (like the Ecuadorean one) and others will be notable for being in notable buildings. Those likely won't be nominated for deletion. But those likely weren't created in the last 6 months as part of this silly diplomati-spam effort. Wikipedia is not a directory for non-notable diplomatic missions. Stalwart 111  13:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, a totally unremarkable building, no coverage likely independant of relations between the two countries. And no content worth merging into United Kingdom–Uruguay relations.TheLongTone (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations. NorthAmerica1000 09:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- We have a list article dealing with UK Ambassadors to Uruguay. We ought to have a similar list article for Ambassadors to UK.  Every diplomatic mission should be notable.  The building is no doubt unremarkable, but what goes on in it is certainly notable, as should be every ambassador who should be listed in it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested. Just realized I didn't actually !vote on this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2014 (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.