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 no consensus. Some of the keep !votes can be discounted, but even if I do that, there's still a straightforward disagreement about whether GNG-satisfying sources exist.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Embasies are all notable as are all important missions as are a showing of international relations, just because you dont think its notible doesnt meet threshold for removal
Popeter45 (
talk)
23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Embassies are definitely not inherently notable. This article fails GNG and is simply a list of ambassadors if anything, material should be moved to a List of ambassadors article.
LibStar (
talk)
07:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Not because embassies are automatically notable, (they are presumed notable, but if there are no sources you still can't write the article!) but because there do seem to be enough sources out there in this case to meet GNG. There's another source linked in the dutch version for the opening date in German that can be added. The WP:IAR and WP5 !votes should be ignored as a blatant case of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT--
Licks-rocks (
talk)
09:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah you're right. I was using it as shorthand for
WP:ATA. I should've just pointed there. There are several options there that I think apply better (just a policy for one), but to summarise my point, I think just saying "AIR applies" is completely meaningless, and it does boil down to just saying "i like it, so damn the rules, I want to keep it around". If you want me to take an argument involving IAR seriously, you'll need to come up with a very good reason why following the rules would lead to undesirable outcomes here, and I'm not seeing any people here doing that.
@
Licks-rocks: I want to mention that IAR is policy and GNG is only a guideline. Many editors cite essays in AfD. My order of importance regarding AfD is policy, guideline, essay.
Lightburst (
talk)
20:42, 28 April 2023 (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.
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 no consensus. Some of the keep !votes can be discounted, but even if I do that, there's still a straightforward disagreement about whether GNG-satisfying sources exist.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Embasies are all notable as are all important missions as are a showing of international relations, just because you dont think its notible doesnt meet threshold for removal
Popeter45 (
talk)
23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Embassies are definitely not inherently notable. This article fails GNG and is simply a list of ambassadors if anything, material should be moved to a List of ambassadors article.
LibStar (
talk)
07:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Not because embassies are automatically notable, (they are presumed notable, but if there are no sources you still can't write the article!) but because there do seem to be enough sources out there in this case to meet GNG. There's another source linked in the dutch version for the opening date in German that can be added. The WP:IAR and WP5 !votes should be ignored as a blatant case of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT--
Licks-rocks (
talk)
09:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah you're right. I was using it as shorthand for
WP:ATA. I should've just pointed there. There are several options there that I think apply better (just a policy for one), but to summarise my point, I think just saying "AIR applies" is completely meaningless, and it does boil down to just saying "i like it, so damn the rules, I want to keep it around". If you want me to take an argument involving IAR seriously, you'll need to come up with a very good reason why following the rules would lead to undesirable outcomes here, and I'm not seeing any people here doing that.
@
Licks-rocks: I want to mention that IAR is policy and GNG is only a guideline. Many editors cite essays in AfD. My order of importance regarding AfD is policy, guideline, essay.
Lightburst (
talk)
20:42, 28 April 2023 (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.