Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Syria in Tokyo

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 Japan-Syria relations. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Syria in Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

fails WP:ORG. also WP:NOTDIR applies too. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything encyclopedic with Japan–Syria relations (but there isn't much of that), then redirect. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term, doesn't link to anything, worth a mention in Japan-Syria relations. Syriasly. Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm glad bad puns are not cause for discounting opinions in deletion discussions —Quasirandom (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article is about an entity not country X-Y relations. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • And in any event, this should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article IS about bilateral international relations, or are you denying that? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is very little information there anyway. -Moritheil (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2009 (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.