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.
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:
‹ The template below (Ambassadors of Colombia) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
Comment, LibStar, you need to go through an actually tag each of those as having been nominated for deletion. These aren't the same thing as the people who hold these offices, they are the offices themselves. We're talking about whether or not a title is notable. In some instances, there might be some value in moving some content to x-x relations articles but mostly these are just indexes - lists of non-notable ambassadors. The two where I think the office itself might be notable are 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★lwart11105:18, 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★lwart11107:56, 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★lwart11108:26, 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★lwart11105:39, 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]
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.