Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Bucharest


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Views are about equally split between keep, delete and merge. That means there's not a consensus to delete the article; whether to improve or merge it can be done outside the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Embassy of the United States, Bucharest

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The main reason this should be deleted is because, aside from the address, the article says absolutely nothing about its purported subject. I tried redirecting to Romania–United States relations, where this content belongs, but was met with a wall of text and reverts, so here we are.

By the way, the article creator has started dozens of articles along the same lines: see e.g. here and here and here — articles ostensibly about US diplomatic missions, but actually about bilateral relations, senselessly duplicating previously existing articles. Might be worth looking into. — Biruitorul Talk 22:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Is the Delete vote actually an argument for a Merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. Most of the relevant content can be in Romania–United States relations. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article includes the elevation of the U.S. Legation to Embassy status, and significant events such as the visit of U.S. First Lady Jill Biden, which are pertinent to this embassy and not merely reflective of broader bilateral relations. The article adheres to WP:VERIFY and WP:SIGCOV, supporting the notability of the embassy as an individual topic. – Kjerish (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but Jill Biden spending five minutes shaking hands there is not a “significant event”, no matter how hard one tries. Who was the building’s architect? How much did it cost? What are its special features? Its dimensions? How was the site selected? Where was the embassy previously located, for decades? (Are you even aware there was a previous headquarters?) When was that built? What is its purpose now that it’s no longer an embassy?
 * These are the sorts of questions a reader might be interested in finding out about, but is left completely in the dark. Inserting a routine news item about a courtesy call by the First Lady doesn’t compensate for that glaring deficiency. — Biruitorul Talk 06:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article on the Embassy of the United States, Bucharest has since been updated, largely by, with information that addresses some of the concerns you raised. The article now includes details about the building itself, such as its relocation history, the dimensions and features of the current embassy compound.
 * I find the information on the embassy's acreage, timeline, and neighborhood valuable as someone not familiar with the area. I actually was not aware there was a previous headquarters. As someone who seems to have knowledge on the subject, I encourage you to review the updated article and consider adding any further information you think might be valuable. This is a discussion of whether or not the article should exist, not whether or not it's currently a C-class article – Kjerish (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * No, I don't support merge. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I can't find a good policy reason for deletion. There are sources, the article is (now, not at nom) about the subject, and the subject is encyclopaedic (also, there are excellent articles on far less notable buildings). There are very good policy reasons to keep, starting with the fact that the article does not match any of the 14 reasons for deletion in WP:DELETE. Two essays, WP:RUSH and WP:DINC, seem to cover this pretty thoroughly. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe if this was the Zimbabwean embassy in Bucharest we'd require a much more comprehensive article to make its notability apparent, however I am sure the American embassy is notable and deserves an article, deleting or merging the article would be counterproductive to the aim of someone eventually writing about all those features Biruitorul has talked about since it will be harder if the article does not exist, it is a bigger burden to create an article from zero than to add a few sentences and a source and make it progressively longer. Though all information currently in this article not specifically about the embassy might need to be removed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not independently notable; any sourceable content can go in Romania–United States relations. Systemic bias issue. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, I agree with Stifle - this is in no way independently notable, and the content of this article is better encyclopedically chronicled in the R-US relations article in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Seems to me like it passes GNG but I do see the rationale for a merge. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge with Romania–United States relations: but only the notable parts. I was excited when I saw the Washington Post in the references, but it was just a mention in an article about Andrew Tate. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:28, 30 November 2023 (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.