Embassy of the United States, Brussels: It has 5 million search results [11] .  The person who requested deletion should prove the subject of this article is less important than any items listed in {{ Diplomatic missions of the United States }} .  Also, Category:Diplomatic missions in Brussels has a bunch of preexisting articles.  There are no reasons to treat the U.S. embassy article differently.   (Please also see similar discussions in Talk:Embassy of the United States, Brasília and Talk:Embassy of the United States, Stockholm )  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 06:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping.  LibStar ( talk ) 08:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar : WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there to prevent someone from keeping an article without showing how important/notable an article is.  In my case, I have shown that my article is equally or more important than those preexisting articles, which have shown the prior consensus on the importance of such articles.  Unfortunately, my article is the only one tagged as not important/notable .  This is discrimination .  After I explained why I think it important, who tagged it should prove why my article is considered as not important / not notable .  However, rather than discussing the importance case by case , you threw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me as a new editor.  This is double standard and bullying a new editor.  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 18:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I gotta go.  Please feel free to do whatever you Wikipedia policemen/judges want to do and enjoy doing so to other newcomers in the future.  You guys really did a great job!  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For those enjoying deleting : here is one more: User:LightningNThunder .  Enjoy clicking "delete"!  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a doubled standard or attempt to bully a new editor These are case by case by basis but it's based on a level notebility.  1keyhole ( talk ) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, then WP:BOLD to delete all of those articles in Category:Diplomatic missions in Brasília , Category:Diplomatic missions in Brussels and {{ Diplomatic missions of the United States }} , or prove how they are more important .  If you don't, this page will be there forever to show what your (and a few folks') double standard is.  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 20:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a double standard nor bullying.  There is no race to delete all pages.  You just can't assume something else similar is notable.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " You just can't assume something else similar is notable " -- @ LibStar : Please stop misleading people.  I am not saying Embassy of the United States, Brussels is notable and should be kept just because it is similar to Taipei Representative Office in Brussels and Permanent Mission of Armenia to NATO , instead, my argument is that Embassy of the United States, Brussels is equally or even more important than those two (want me to prove it? Simply see how many Google search results there are - both have less than 1 million results).  It doesn't make sense if you only mark Embassy of the United States, Brussels as not important and try to delete it.  If you do so, it is a double standard.  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 02:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:GOOGLEHITS .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar : : You guys are really like the theologians in the Middle Ages - both very good at citing doctrines/rules and evading the actual question .  You don't know how to answer my question (i.e. why you treat Embassy of the United States, Brussels differently and don't dare to touch other articles in Category:Diplomatic missions in Brussels , i.e. double standard ), so you now say Google results don't count.  Nice move.  That being said, I actually don't have to rely on Google search results to prove why Embassy of the United States, Brussels is more important than Permanent Mission of Armenia to NATO (showed the search results simply for convenience) because this is a common sense.  If you insist on saying Armenia is more important than the U.S., then I think I really should shut up.  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 02:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said " If you insist on saying Armenia is more important than the U.S.".  Please don't put words in my mouth.  Also a reminder to be WP:CIVIL rather than asking someone to shut up.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you agree that the U.S. is more important (or at least equally important) than Armenia, then you you wouldn't have to nitpick & question about the Google search results (we really don't need the numbers to prove a common sense) by throwing a WP:GOOGLEHITS , which made me unhappy - I do apologize for some words in my response, and you wouldn't have to tag Embassy of the United States, Brussels as low importance and try to delete it.  Instead, you may want to keep it just like Taipei Representative Office in Brussels and Permanent Mission of Armenia to NATO .  If you agree with me, then the discussion is essentially closed.  You can either: delete my article, but at the same time, treat other embassy articles (i.e. delete them) the same way (i.e., avoid double standard ) unless you prove some of them are more important than Embassy of the United States, Brussels , or keep my article.  I will respect your choice regardless which one it is.  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 03:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Belgium ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Embassies are not inherently notable, they need to meet GNG.  This one does not get significant coverage.  LibStar ( talk ) 08:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : see my comment at 18:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC).  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 20:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Belgium–United States relations under Resident diplomatic missions.  The one source is already in the bilateral relations article.  2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:1485:9663:50E3:704C ( talk ) 10:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Don't be shy to log in.  Wish it was not someone who pretended to be a stranger to weigh in.  LightningNThunder ( talk ) 20:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please try to keep this WP:CIVIL.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Embasies are all notable as are all important missions as are a showing of international relations, just because you dont think its notible doesnt meet threshold for removal Popeter45 ( talk ) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the Wikipedia policy that says embassies are all notable?  LibStar ( talk ) 02:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] were is the policy they must all be removed?  And yes as principal they are all notable Popeter45 ( talk ) 08:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references from the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia.  Embassies are not automatically notable, but they often are, particularly when they are in an historic building or use heavy-handed security measures that are covered in reliable sources.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep it looks like their is enough significant coverage in Belgian media to keep, but I understand the other editors concerns.  @ Popeter45 I don't think "yes as principal all embassies are notable" is a wikipedia guideline and we should try to restrict are arguments to establish notability under GNG.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject of this article is a diplomatic mission between two major countries and has adequate coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOFEAT #2 ...notable as a result of... historic, social, economic, or architectural importance .  And coverage exists to support it.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well sourced, contains information outside of the scope of Belgium–United States relations (for instance, the move to a new building), no given reason to delete.  While the article's writer definitely fails WP:CIVIL , that isn't a reason to dismiss their core argument, which is that no reason has been given for "doesn't meet WP:ORG " despite existence of sources.  Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are enough sources to pass WP:GNG .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the added sources do enough to establish notability, and there appears to be further coverage of the street closure issues (e.g. [12] ) and the move, mostly in Dutch news sources.  I disagree with the suggestion that all government buildings or embassies are automatically notable and I disagree with the WP:OSE arguments, but I think this building has enough coverage to pass.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 23:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Embassies aren't inherently notable, WP:GNG hasn't been met.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources for each embassies in multiple countries are notable.  WP:GNG has met.  No need to say, "What about other embassies in Brussels".  CastJared ( talk ) 14:57, 28 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep