Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Mali, 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 merge to Canada–Mali relations. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mali, Ottawa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. unless there is something notable about the building or what the actual embassy does. those wanting to keep must show third party sources. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I'm not entirely sure if WP:BEFORE has been committed. Almost every embassy of a major sovereign country will have reliable sources. I've done some work to the article, added some historical information about the building and expanded on the general purpose of the diplomatic mission. Secondly, WP:ORG seems like an inappropriate policy to cite. Technically the embassy is a branch of the foreign department of the government. I think you're more implying the building and no so much the actual foreign government. Also, the embassy holds special diplomatic status and legally recognized by both countries as sovereign foreign soil (WP:NGEO). Lastly, while not listed at WP:OUTCOMES, they're generally seen as notable and that the problem of sourcing is a surmountable problem. Mkdw ^talk 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes we should use previous outcomes, embassies are not inherently notable and have been previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_of_Serbia,_Minsk. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about these 'keep' AfD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Dublin

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Oslo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Laos in Moscow

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Mexico in Berlin

Regardless I think the article's references and sources at present are more than enough for warrant a keep of the article on its own notability grounds. Mkdw ^talk 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

many have been redirected too, you can't say they have 100% inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes was my last point in my argument. The first two are still by far the most important and based in Wikipedia policy; I've improved the article with independent sources about the building as well as many reliable official sources (mostly on information not controversial per WP:PRIMARY). I never said 100% inherently notable, but that they are generally seen as notable and most cases they have been redirected as a result of little to no content. I'm sure this article would have as well if not improved. I'm simply stating that it seems most of them are about their the current state of the article as a stub and not so much about the actual subject. Very few delete arguments are based around non-notable WP:ORG. Mkdw ^talk 00:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canada–Mali relations. I've seen no evidence that embassies are inherently notable, and it would fit the theme of Canada–Mali relations which isn't a great article but is certainly in-depth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to talk about the building history supported to reliable and independent coverage. Such information would seem inappropriate for the article Canada–Mali relations. Mkdw ^talk 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and information about a different embassy is inappropriate for this article. Otherwise all embassy articles should be filled with info on events in other embassies. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cola. Perfectly Ok to save this material via merging. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.