Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni

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 redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. This is going on way too long. Admins, just because it's easier doesn't mean you should hit "relist" three times when there's been more than enough comments on the discussion. Someone needs to actually take action on this and it might as well be me. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni (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:ORG, part of a sprawling series of embassy articles with no third party sources to establish notability. Similar AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare.

Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 08:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a merger or redirect would not be consistent with the other AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 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 04:30, 25 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:29, 9 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, Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the naturegiven flesh 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all because there's no real information, although I don't see why these couldn't warrant their own articles. I mean, there are lots of articles like Embassy of France, London, for example. If each of these were expanded with just a bit of real information and some photos, they could justify their existence.  Liam987(talk) 18:47, 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.