Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations

WP:DSBILATERAL

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bilateral relations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bilateral relations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bilateral relations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Bilateral relations

Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations

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

Article is largely WP:OR and created by a now indef blocked user that had a history of using revisionist/negationist citations and misusing citations. Lacks WP:RS, unreliable sources include other Wiki projects and links that don't work. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Central African Republic, Washington, D.C.

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

The one source provided merely confirms who the ambassador is. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Central African Republic, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations

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

Previously deleted under looser notability standards at AfD in 2009. Not every country A and country B combination is notable. Very poorly sourced, no secondary sources at all. Contains wild claims such as "political relations are close due to similarities between the 2 countries on historical, geographical and economical issues." AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus. AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirmai Ghebremariam

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

Article of low relevance considering it is the biography of a living person and a current politician Alon9393 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT (merely an essay, I know!) says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. GhostOfNoMeme 22:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searches of Google Books and Google Scholar also yield nothing of value, either. Almost entirely just passing mentions in various years' issues of the Statesman's Yearbook which do nothing beyond confirm his role as ambassador, as in "Ambassador: Ghirmai Ghebremariam" in the list of diplomatic representatives under the entry for Eritrea. GhostOfNoMeme 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GhostOfNoMeme's searches demonstrate that WP:BIO is not met. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ireland, Bern

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

Fails WP:ORG. 4 of the 5 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I could say that it is relevant for some future event, in addition, the diplomatic headquarters will always be reflected in history in the event of a break in diplomatic relations or progress in these, it is important to reflect this. --Alon9393 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Iraq, Moscow

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article is based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iraq, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could say that it is relevant to some future event, in addition the diplomatic headquarters will always be reflected in history in case of a break in diplomatic relations or attacks on them.--Alon9393 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cameroon, Beijing

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

Unreferenced for over 9 years and fails WP:ORG. Text such as "Visa to non-Cameroonian citizen can also be applied for at the Embassy and the procedure would take a few days (up to a couple of weeks) All fees can be paid in RMB." does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cameroon, and China. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cameroon–China relations (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Sierra Leone, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Sierra Leone, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a {{R from list entry}} per all the other nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Togo, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. 1 of the 2 sources is its own website, the other is the UK foreign ministry. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London per the outcome of literally every other prod and AfD about embassies and high commissions in London that has been closed after redirection was suggested, and a trout for the nominator for wasting community time by continuing to AfD plausible search terms with a very clear target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people suggest other targets like bilateral relations articles. There is no such thing as "speedy redirect". Never heard that in my 17 years on WP. I would have prodded this but one editor complained they need to go to AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you say will discourage me from nominating embassy articles for deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a response to my reasons for nominating for deletion. Do you acknowledge there are in fact more than 1 possible target if redirected. Do you acknowledge that "speedy keep" is only used by you and not a community accepted start for a vote? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the biggest time wasters are those who created these embassy articles as stubs and questionable notability. At least one of these editors is now permanently banned. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing what should happen with one article out of 6+ million articles on the project. We typically have 70-100 AFD nomination proposals every day. Let's all be CIVIL and not get personal here. We want participation in each AFD in order to come to the clearest understanding of consensus and disputes between editors tends to drive away editors unless they want to join in on the dispute and those are the editors who we don't want here. The focus is the article, not the discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cameroon, Moscow

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

Article merely confirms its address. Does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cameroon, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of South Korea, Dublin

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

Article based on primary sources, fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Korea, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched in the Korean language and none of what I read passes the threshold of notability. These are the closest I could find: [1][2] seefooddiet (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Poland, Dublin

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

Marked for notability concerns since December 2020. The only sources provided is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Poland. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages and fails WP:NORG. Xegma(talk) 05:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ireland–Poland_relations#Resident_diplomatic_missions. As WP:ATD-R. While the building/office/institution likely has no independent notability, there is some value (and certainly nothing inappropriate) about retaining the title. As a redirect to the article in which the topic/subject is covered. Guliolopez (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bùi Đình Dĩnh

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

Have been unable to locate significant coverage in secondary sources, despite looking through several articles in Vietnamese. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Vietnam, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 13:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. I found a source like this but it's a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chindia

AfDs for this article:

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

Could be made a sentence or two on China–India relations, without its own article. At present it's largely just describing China–India relations and is a WP:DEFINITION page. It doesn't qualify as WP:WORDISSUBJECT. seefooddiet (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and India. seefooddiet (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. A random mix of facts that doesn't warrant a wikipedia article. Also, controversial comments such as 'Europe is looking towards China to lead economic recovery' should not be supported by just a random news article. SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective merge/redirect to China–India relations. Here is a source I found about the subject:
1. Thussu, Daya Kishan (2014-11-10). "De-Americanising Media Studies and the Rise of "Chindia"". Javnost—The Public, Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/13183222.2013.11009126.
  The article notes: "The Other Globalisation: China+India = Chindia. What is the bilateral relationship between the world’s two ancient civilisations, with the largest populations and fastest growing economies? Jairam Ramesh, political analyst and currently India’s Rural Development Minister, is credited with coining the term “Chindia,” a phenomenon representing what has been termed as the “rise of the rest” in a “post-American world” (Ramesh 2005; Zakaria 2008). The idea of this neologism seems to be catching on; a Google search for the word “Chindia” shows more than 800,000 hits. Any meaningful discussion of global media research ought to take into account the rapid growth of these two large nations with their potential to influence the emerging global scene."
  The article notes: "Can the growth of media and communication studies in Chindia contribute to broadening research concerns and agendas in this relatively new fi eld? Conforming to the social sciences more generally, research in the media and communication arena too has been traditionally influenced by what Edward Said has shown as a Eurocentric essentialism of thought, where the “other” was imagined or created as part of an ideological discourse, privileging European imperialist epistemology (Said 1978). ..."
The source notes that "Chindia" is a neologism created by Jairam Ramesh. It may be possible to write an article about the "Chindia" neologism" but this article is not it as it focuses on Chinese–India relations and relies on sources that briefly mention "Chindia" without discussing it in detail.
I recommend a redirect to China–India relations with a mention that "Chindia" is a neologism created by Ramesh. I support a merge, not a redirect, because aside from a mention in the "See also" section, China–India relations currently does not mention "Chindia" in the body of the article.
No prejudice against recreating the article if one that does not violate Wikipedia:No original research and does not duplicate China–India relations can be created.
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The lede and the individual sections have almost nothing to do with one another, and except for two sources, consists of synthesis. I’m not opposed to a very specific merge of two sources that actually refer to the word ‘Chindia’ about the two countries’ relations. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Washington, D.C.

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

Fails WP:ORG. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laos–United States relations.--User:Namiba 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Laos–United States relations as usual. The building is, I believe, a contributing property to a NRHP district, but there's nothing much here about the building and in any case this can be handled through redirection. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unsure of what there is to merge? The address of the embassy? Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mali, Moscow

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

One primary source in the article after 16 years. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mali–Russia relations almost all the embassies are not notable as they often don't have any reliable source talking about them, which in this case this. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Another embassy article created by a now-blocked user. Nothing really to merge. AusLondonder (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Venezuela, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. No indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, just like every single other one of these articles about embassies and high commissions that have been brought to AfD or PROD recently. There is no point wasting community time at AfD, just redirect them - none of the PRODs that I've redirected have been reverted, none of the AfDs I've been aware of have closed as anything other than redirect when that option has been presented (one was deleted after nobody suggested it in the AfD, I recreated it as a redirect and that hasn't been challenged). Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these articles were previously deleted at AfD. I don't understand why everything must now be a redirect. I personally don't think someone searching Wikipedia for "High Commission of Seychelles, London" is going to be well-served by being taken to a lengthy list of diplomatic missions, have to scroll all the way down to Seychelles and simply be given an address. I think that list, which has no secondary sources, completely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: I know it's only a small part of your comment, but readers don't necessarily have to scroll all the way down. Redirects can target specific list entries (using anchors), not just sections. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a diplomatic headquarters of a conflictive country in Great Britain, therefore it must be maintained and expanded, as soon as possible my position is to maintain it. Alon9393 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your comment doesn't make sense. Please have a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD for some information on the types of arguments to make at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and Alon9393 makes no argument as to how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Venezuela, Houston

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

Consulates are rarely notable, this one lacks in-depth secondary source coverage to prove otherwise. Only coverage appears to relate to a minor incident where the consulate moved location without permission. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Venezuela, and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that consulates are rarely notable. The minor incident doesn't really add to notability. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has encyclopedic relevance; the topic appears in an encyclopedia. The content of the article is encyclopedic, with a broader extension and content it can remain on Wikipedia. Alon9393 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed how it meets notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Džundev

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

Diplomat, so not automatically notable. Tagged for notability for 9 years (which is how I found it). I can't find any sources but primary or non-significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it's not expanded nor added sources. Xegma(talk) 03:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits is not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomats, including ambassadors, are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC. There's no evidence this subject does. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Romania, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Romania, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canada-Romania relations: Most embassies aren't notable by themselves but make a good addition to the two countries' relations. Hlsci (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with Canada-Romania relations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to demonstrate any particular notability about this building. I'd support a merge but the article Canada–Romania relations already says all that needs to be said: The Embassy of Romania in Ottawa was opened in 1970. and this article contains literally no additional information about the embassy that could even be merged (with the possible exception of the embassy's address; I don't honestly know whether pages on bilateral relations typically feature full addresses of respective embassies). GhostOfNoMeme 23:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Dublin

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

Based on primary sources. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and improve. Rather than delete. While it is likely true that the embassy (the office/building/institution/whatever) doesn't have independent notability, there is plenty of coverage of Ireland-Ukraine relations generally. So, personally, I'd suggest that the article be increased in scope slightly. And moved to Ukraine–Ireland relations. Similar to Ireland–Russia relations. Or Spain–Ukraine relations. Or others. With a redirect left behind. If that's "too much", the title should (at the very least) be retargeted to List of diplomatic missions of Ukraine. Personally don't think that outright deletion is the best approach here. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Ireland-Ukraine relations are a notable topic, which is quite possibly true, then an article on that subject can easily be created. AusLondonder (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. There is already, on a second review, a title on the subject. At Ireland–Ukraine relations. So we wouldn't need to create an (additional) article on that subject. We'd just need to merge/redirect the content (on the embassy - which effectively covers foreign relations as a whole anyway) to the existing title. Personally I think that's the best course of action. Rather than deleting (and then effectively recreating) the content/topic/title. Guliolopez (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but concurring with the "move and improve" of User:Guliolopez - consider creating Ukraine-Ireland relations and move this into there with more on the relations rather than the embassy. I did find this from the Kyiv Post - it's part 2 so presumably part 1 also has useful info. And I assume that Dublin newspapers will also cover the topic. That seems much more important than the embassy. Lamona (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if salvageable Andre🚐 18:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. There is a redirect at Ireland-Ukraine relations so there would have to be a different target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of China, Chongjin

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

Consulates are rarely notable. I'm certainly not seeing how this one is, with lines such as "The consulate expressed "deep condolences" after Kim Jong-il's death in 2011". Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and North Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that consulates are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in North Korea#Consulates general, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one so far argues to keep the article. Whether to delete or redirect, though, could use more input. Why keep the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Responding to the relist comment, it is useful to keep the history per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion so that non-admins have access to the content and the sources. This gives non-admins the option to reuse the content and sources to expand and source other articles like List of diplomatic missions in North Korea#Consulates general. This gives non-admins the option to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future (and reuse some of the previous content) without having to ask an admin to undelete the article. The page history does not contain WP:BLP violations or copyright violations so there is no harm to retaining the redirect. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me very unlikely sources will be "found in the future" about this consulate. There's also very little useful content or sources to retain behind the redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that editor who conducts an in-depth search in Korean-language or Chinese-language sources could find enough information about this consulate to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The article contains useful information about the consulate's history and list of consuls. Some of this information could be selectively merged to another article like China–North Korea relations, List of diplomatic missions of China, or List of diplomatic missions in North Korea. There is no harm in preserving the article's history under the redirect, which is why I support retaining the history so it is accessible to non-admins. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, redirecting makes more sense than deleting. It's possible more sources could be found in the future (North Korea hosts very few foreign consulates, so this is a pretty distinctive subject) and it's possible the material in the history could be useful for other articles. The redirect would also be helpful for navigation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Berlin

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

Unreferenced article that merely is a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some article about German-Moldovan relations, don't know which one, and salvage Andre🚐 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shearman

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

Proposed deletion tag removed on the basis of "several sources" being present. This consists of two primary sources from the British government, an entry in the unreliable Who's Who, the subjects Twitter page and a brief mention of his appointments in a list of British diplomats. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Uganda, and Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Could not find significant third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CVO, a high honour which has generally been considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. They're not handed out in cereal packets. A handful are awarded every year. Confirmation that he was appointed CVO in 2003. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. I'm sure you're very well aware that that's not really the case. The media generally has little interest in diplomats. Once again, that's largely the point of ANYBIO #1. It balances out people who are notable in real if not especially sexy jobs against media obsession with pop cultural figures. If clauses like this didn't exist then Wikipedia would become ever more focused on pop culture and even less on being a proper encyclopaedia. It's heading in that direction now, sadly, and nominations like this just speed up the rot. He's not a historic figure is a meaningless statement, especially given he's still alive. What does that mean? I assume it simply means you don't think he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to have a look at some British ambassadors to see whether this is accurate. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. Menna Rawlings, ambassador to France, DCMG CVO. Karen Pierce, ambassador to the US, DCMG. Nigel Casey, ambassador to Russia, CMG MVO. Julia Longbottom, ambassador to Japan, CMG. Jill Gallard, ambassador to Germany, CMG CVO. Martin Harris, ambassador to Ukraine, OBE CMG. Alex Ellis, ambassador to Spain, KCMG. Notice a peculiar pattern here? A walled garden of articles, some with zero secondary sources (completely unacceptable for a BLP), of British diplomats awarded honours by their employer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jones (British diplomat)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but should have closed as delete given AfD is not a simple headcount, with strength of argument supposed to account for something. Two editors favoured deleting, and two favoured keeping (including the creator, who cited the unreliable Who's Who as a keep rationale). Source analysis in previous AfD established Jones lacks significant coverage specifically about him in multiple published secondary sources and therefore fails WP:BASIC. The current article has not been improved since last AfD and instead still consists of three sources which do not contribute to notability. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this which doesn't look too bad but I don't really know how it works for ambassadors. There may be more but I am unsure what exactly counts for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are good as well. This is also a bit helpful but not as much. I was able to find this from just Switzerland and I didn't even try to search for the other places. Again, not very experienced with ambassadors, but I think this is GNG now, especially with the the Le Temps source which is the Romandy's newspaper of record. So keep.

@CFA Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank only Switzerland's inexplicably well digitized press. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source above is good, but I couldn't find anything else. Ambassadors have to meet WP:NBASIC like everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage exists ~~but I'm inclined to delete unless some is found.~~ C F A 💬 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage found provides enough coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX There are three keep votes and no deletes. Is that not enough consensus? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, has AusLondonder turned into chopped liver while I wasn't looking? Either way, I don't see any reason to hurry. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expand and maintain, just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases. Alon9393 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by " just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases"? It doesn't make sense is arguing for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many of these embassy articles created at a time with less stringent enforcement of notability requirements, this fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which contains all the encyclopaedic information about the embassy. The list of ambassadors should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate target but I haven't immediately found one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Moscow

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

Zero secondary sources. No indication whatsoever of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD featured multiple false claims that "all embassies are inherently notable". AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Laos–Russia relations as is the usual outcome for these non-notable embassy buildings. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is possible that the building might have notability beyond its current function. Per Izvestii︠a︡: Vol. 13. Narodna biblioteka "Kiril i Metodiĭ". 1973. p. 538 at the same address there would have been the Czechoslovak embassy, but so far I haven't been able to decipher the chronology. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so ru.wiki has an article on the building per se, at ru:Особняк А. К. Ферстер — Михельсона as a historical architectural monument. I'd say that as such the notability can be established. Furthermore the article can be fleshed out with a bit of history of the embassy. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need sources, the Russian Wikipedia article is lacking them. It does not establish notability for this article. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The Russian article is lacking sources so hard to argue for notability on the basis of that. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important for Laos - Russia relationship Cantab12 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "important" is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mangoe. No extant sourcing discussed to warrant keeping in the above comments. Redirection is the preferred alternative to deletion. czar 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. It can be redirected to Laos–Russia relations. The notability of the building, as mentioned above, does not establish notability for this article ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to rescue at the moment and very weak. Alon9393 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]