Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Rome

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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Sweden, Rome

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. There is also no bilateral article to redirect this to. Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - I'm sorry. What happened there again? :P Jackninja5 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually nominated 3 articles. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I should've put my glasses on. So make that three. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The swedish embassy in Rome is notable because the italo-swedush relations are important for both country. As exemple thousand of Italians live in Sweden, Italy and Sweden are not two small country with less than 1 milion citizen.User:Lucifero4

that may be true but that's facts for a Italy Sweden bilateral article. you haven't demonstrated how WP:ORG is met, an embassy must meet notability criteria not be "important" for people. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all If embassies aren't notable, that needs to change immidiately or else Wikipedia experiences a major lack in the coverage of bilateral relations and international politics. J 1982 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've presented no evidence or argument as to how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin should disregard the two votes immediately above, which make no policy-based argument whatsoever. Neutrality^talk 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of facts that are not at the moment to be found in the article itself but can easily be retrieved from other sources and which show that there is more relevance than "meets the eye" at the moment. First of all: as can be seen in the corresponding article on svwp the list of ambassadors could be drawn back at least to the mid-18th century. Secondly: the 1960s building mentioned in the present article and in this link is only a part of the embassy (used by the administration). There is also the main residence of the ambassador, which is a building from 1896, bought by the Swedish state in 1922; see this link (which also points out that there has been diplomatic relations between Sweden and Italy since the 15th century, making this embassy (as an institution) Sweden's oldest). /FredrikT (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (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.