Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Colombia to Australia

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.

Ambassador of Colombia to Australia

Ambassador of Colombia to Australia (edit | 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. not only did someone create a whole sprawling series of embassy of Colombia articles, a duplicate "ambassador of " series was created by the same person . I see no reason for this duplicate series. Also nominating all country ambassadors in this template:

• comment I have tagged all for deletion except
  Ambassador of Colombia to the United States, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the Organization of American States and Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment,
  Ambassador of Colombia to the United States and Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations. There are maybe some others that I don't think should be the subject of an en masse nomination. But the nomination has to be fixed either way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

how is this different from "embassy of Colombia" series? LibStar (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really, there's just a couple from this list (unlike the other) that should be excluded. And they all need to be tagged. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will tag them, do you support deletion of any of these? LibStar (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Yeah, I probably support deleting all of them except for the ones I've mentioned above. But I can go through them properly and see if there are any others I might have concerns about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all but those specified above. Embassies aren't inherently notable, ambassadors aren't inherently notable, their offices/titles certainly aren't inherently notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There isn't really much information on them and some only have one source.
  talk) 14:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all but mentioned, as keeping one of these non-notable articles means we have to keep, hypothetically, 65536 or more completely redundant articles that have almost no useful information at all, except for the aforementioned articles that indeed have useful information. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Renata (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete walled garden of copy-pasted non-notable articles. As bad a mess as the X-Y relations that keep cropping up. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Not notable in the slightest. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:13, 7 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.