Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Laos in Moscow

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. Der yck C. 17:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos in Moscow

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find sources that make the building or embassy notable. embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Embassies are inherently notable – or at least deserve a redirect to the relations article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

embassies are not inherently notable. There is no guideline which grants automatic notability. 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable subject. Article has no references, and I can't find any coverage of the subject. The lone external link is subject's own site. —Bzweebl— ^talk 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic Moscow building in the Art Nouveau style by noted architect AE Erikhson. Some more content here (g-translated). Diplomatic missions are extremely important and notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted work of architecture. No indication of notability qua embassy. Sandstein 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein and Oakshade. The building itself independently notable. Lord Roem (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2012 (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.