Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Commission of Tonga, 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   redirect to Foreign_relations_of_Tonga. Anyone is free to merge in material if desired. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

High Commission of Tonga, London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable, there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. article looks like someone's photo essay of a trip to the outside of the building. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There's no bilateral article but there's a substantial section Foreign relations of Tonga. It doesn't mention the High Commission in London so not sure redirect is appropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- For the diplomatic mission of the UK governmetn to Tonga, we have List of High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Tonga. There ought to be an equivalent article for the reverse relationship.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is an argument for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 20 June 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 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - individual High Commissioners might be notable and a list of them might be okay but the building/institution itself is not inherently notable and needs to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. This doesn't.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still say keep - If the mission to Tonga is notable (and it seems to be as we have a list article on it), the mission from Tonga should be too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not really an accurate reflection of bilateral relations, though, is it? As far as Tonga are concerned, the mission from Britain represents one of a handful of incredibly important relationships with other countries. As far as Britain is concerned, the mission from Tonga is that of just another Pacific island nation. The notability requirements here are the same for any other organisation, group or entity - it must meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG and there's no evidence it does. Diplomatic missions, embassies and consulates are not inherently notable. Again, aspects of the relationship might be notable and those can be noted at Foreign relations of Tonga or at the not-yet-created Tonga–United Kingdom relations (which should be created far sooner that articles for individual non-notable buildings).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Foreign relations of Tonga. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Tonga. Does not meet ORGDEPTH so independent article is not warranted. Let's be clear: the article consists of a single sentence, but there is no reason why that should make merging inappropriate. Bellerophon talk to me  07:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete a redirect may be in order but I'm not confident on that. SPACKlick (talk) 13:47, 10 July 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.