- 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 delete all -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Embassy of Colombia, Panama City ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This is just a directory listing showing the address there is also no bilateral article to redirect this article to .also nominating for the same reasons:
- Embassy of Colombia, San Salvador
- Embassy of Colombia, Port of Spain LibStar ( talk) 14:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We can discuss whether embassies are inherently notable or whether they are notable without exception (but their notability needs to be proved). There will be more than enough coverage on either of these embassies. It's all about someone looking it up. In the meantime, this is a perfectly valid stub missing third party coverage but reliably covered by the Colombia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Deletion is only adequate if the subject is of questionable notability. In the contrary, more of these starters would be fine to close our gaps in coverage. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- where is the significant third party coverage? If there are sources provide them, otherwise
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Many embassy stubs have been deleted which is perfectly valid under deletion processes.
LibStar (
talk)
14:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- the Colombian ministry of foreign affairs is a primary source and can't be used to establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- where is the significant third party coverage? If there are sources provide them, otherwise
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Many embassy stubs have been deleted which is perfectly valid under deletion processes.
LibStar (
talk)
14:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - duplicates of listings already at List of diplomatic missions of Colombia and redirects there would be pointless. Embassies and diplomatic missions are not inherently notable and must each meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH in their own right. Can't see that these do. St★lwart 111 07:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Stalwart, it fails general notability and also duplicates an existing article. SamuelDay1 ( talk) 13:42, 20 January 2015 (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.
- 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 delete all -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Embassy of Colombia, Panama City ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This is just a directory listing showing the address there is also no bilateral article to redirect this article to .also nominating for the same reasons:
- Embassy of Colombia, San Salvador
- Embassy of Colombia, Port of Spain LibStar ( talk) 14:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We can discuss whether embassies are inherently notable or whether they are notable without exception (but their notability needs to be proved). There will be more than enough coverage on either of these embassies. It's all about someone looking it up. In the meantime, this is a perfectly valid stub missing third party coverage but reliably covered by the Colombia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Deletion is only adequate if the subject is of questionable notability. In the contrary, more of these starters would be fine to close our gaps in coverage. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- where is the significant third party coverage? If there are sources provide them, otherwise
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Many embassy stubs have been deleted which is perfectly valid under deletion processes.
LibStar (
talk)
14:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- the Colombian ministry of foreign affairs is a primary source and can't be used to establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- where is the significant third party coverage? If there are sources provide them, otherwise
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Many embassy stubs have been deleted which is perfectly valid under deletion processes.
LibStar (
talk)
14:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - duplicates of listings already at List of diplomatic missions of Colombia and redirects there would be pointless. Embassies and diplomatic missions are not inherently notable and must each meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH in their own right. Can't see that these do. St★lwart 111 07:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Stalwart, it fails general notability and also duplicates an existing article. SamuelDay1 ( talk) 13:42, 20 January 2015 (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.