Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Commission of Jamaica, Ottawa


 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with zero !votes. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

High Commission of Jamaica, Ottawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. all this confirms is the high commission exists. and embassies are not inherently notable. also nominating:
 * Embassy of Colombia, Ottawa
 * Embassy of Afghanistan in Ottawa
 * Embassy of Argentina, Ottawa
 * Embassy of Latvia, Ottawa
 * Embassy of Switzerland, Ottawa LibStar (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - is there a policy on embassies? An embassy is not an organization, it's a place of residence and work for a head of state. It projects the authority and influence of that head of state into the surrounding area, and carries at least as much influence as any organization or person that reports to it. I would keep all of these. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you're arguing inherent notability when there is no guideline which says that. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment are these supposed to be notable as physical buildings, or as diplomatic missions? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * as diplomatic missions they have no inherent notability as many have been d well deleted. If the building is proven notable then they may be notable. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None of them appear architecturally notable: as far as I can tell, they're either office suites in larger buildings or ordinary houses. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2017 (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.