Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo

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 Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG - embassies are not inherently notable. Sources are primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - I would be prepared to support this article being merged to Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. Dan arndt (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. While the embassy is not notable, it's reasonable that the bilateral relations article should contain details of both embassies.----Pontificalibus 09:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similarly length and sourced articles should then also be considered for deletion: Embassy of the United States, Tbilisi, Embassy of the United States, Pretoria, Embassy of the United States, Ulaanbaatar, Embassy of the United States, Malabo, Embassy of the United States, Abu Dhabi, Embassy of the United States, Warsaw, Embassy of the United States, Tirana, Embassy of the United States, Juba, Consulate General of Afghanistan, Jeddah, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Tashkent, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Mexico City, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Quito, Embassy of Germany, Chișinău, Embassy of Germany, Bangkok, Embassy of Germany, Bangladesh, Embassy of Germany, Brasília, Embassy of Germany, Moscow, Embassy of Germany, Tel Aviv, Embassy of Germany, Wellington, Embassy of Germany, Windhoek. These are diplomatic mission articles of the US, UK, and Germany that I believe have similar properties. There should be more at Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country CakalangSantan (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, some of the information in the embassy article has worth and is not out of place in the relations article. The relations article would of course need the vice versa information also. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or hold an RfC to decide whether to delete all non-noteworthy embassy articles on Wikipedia). It would be absurd to delete this article, considering the 1,500+ year history between Indonesia and Sri Lanka, but to leave up every other article about Indonesian embassies (e.g. Embassy_of_Indonesia,_Windhoek). As CakalangSantan notes, this isn't confined to Indonesia, and there are hundreds, possibly thousands of articles about embassies that are no more notable than this one. -Kieran (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This physical embassy is probably not 1,500 years old. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is no need to hold for an RFC as this can be dealt on its own merits. Either the article satisfies the requirements of WP:GEOFEAT or it does not. As the nominator I don’t have a problem with it being merged t o Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then all other embassy articles should be assessed on whether they should also be merged to their respective bilateral relations articles. CakalangSantan (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CakalangSantan, my point exactly each of the respective articles should be dealt with on the own individual merits. There doesn't need to be a unilateral deletion or merge as each article is different and some may be notable in their own right. However in respect to this article there is no evidence that I have been able to find that demonstrates that it is notable and no editor to date has been able to demonstrate otherwise. Dan arndt (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything will happen to the other articles after this article has been dealt with. My intention was not a unilateral deletion or merge, but a unilateral AfD on similar articles (I've listed a few in a previous comment). CakalangSantan (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt, the wider issue is that, actually going by what's on Wikipedia right now, the current consensus is that embassies are inherently notable. There may not be a agreed-upon policy, but there is a very clearly agreed-upon practice. If the policy and the practice disagree, then the way forward is an RfC to review the policy and come to a community consensus. The outcome of that might be a multiple-AfD of thousands of embassy articles, but it would be done in a way that ensured consensus and community engagement. Piecemeal AfDs do not seem like a good solution. -Kieran (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran - where is your evidence that "the current consensus is that embassies are inherently notable". I have gone through all the AfD cases for the last two years and if anything it is clear that almost all AfDs for embassies and consul-generals have actually been deleted on the grounds that they are not inherently notable. So I'd like to understand where you've come up with this viewpoint as it doesn't seem to be supported. Dan arndt (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly from the contents of Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country, which is full of articles that wouldn't pass WP:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG on their own merits. -Kieran (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially Kieran you are saying that "the current consensus is that embassies are inherently notable" purely on the basis that other stuff exists - if it is actually what you are saying, then it is a totally flawed argument. You even admit that most of those wouldn't pass notability standards anyway. As I've stated previously embassies are not inherently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Beijing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of The Republic of Serbia, Canberra, ACT and there are numerous others. Dan arndt (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep The article is lacking content and could be better if it is merged with Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations as mentioned by Pontificalibus. Abishe (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2019 (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.