Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United Kingdom, Tashkent


 * 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–Uzbekistan relations.  Sandstein  17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Tashkent

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. All this article does is confirm the embassy exists. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep not sure what WP:BEFORE search yielded, but I found some articles about previous Ambassador Craig Murray (of UK to Uzbekistan)
 * (written by Craig, can be treats as WP:SPS.
 * (written by Craig, can be treats as WP:SPS.


 * 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. United Kingdom-Uzbekistan 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) 11:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. How can articles about the ambassador show that the building he works in is notable? Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * agree with above, these sources found contribute to Craig Murray not the embassy. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to United Kingdom–Uzbekistan relations, which is more than short enough to contain this material. Geschichte (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to United Kingdom–Uzbekistan relations as suggested above. The target article may as well be expanded with relevant content from another article (this one) which doesn't need to be independent at this time. A redirect to the appropriate section after the merge would then be sufficient. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (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.