Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Ottawa

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 in Ottawa. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ecuador in Ottawa (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 and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. No evidence for this either. Those wanting to keep must show evidence if third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I couldn't find any references which demonstrate the notability of this office through a Google search, so WP:ORG doesn't seem likely to be met. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 21:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I vote, could anyone explain what's the difference between this article and Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.? Neither seems notable 'to ME, but I don't want to support the deletion of one while the community decides to keep the other. It feels like I would be supporting more of the US-centric bias that Wikipedia is always accused of. Feedback ^☎ 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a consideration here. Some embassies are notable some are not. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple question. Is that one notable or not? Because if it is, we should totally bundle it to this deletion discussion. It's ridiculously biased for us to keep the American one and not the Canadian one when they have pretty much the same claim to notability. Feedback ^☎ 18:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that neither is notable. The US one (due only to the fact that it is in a building that has hosted several different embassies over the years) may have a slightly better chance at having sources existing, but a quick internet search and what is there doesn't convince me it is notable either. I don't think there is any bias on the nominator's part though, as s/he, based on their other nominations, simply went through embassies in Canada and nominated those that they beleived were not notable. I would completely support you if you were to nominate the US one for deletion. I would, however, caution against bundling embassies from the same country together as their individual situations, due to differing political relations, are often very different and should be examined independently. And as to bias, I think supporting deletion here, and not on the US in its present state, would be very difficult to do, as, as you rightly point out, both their claims is simply that they exist as an embassy. Ravendrop 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair argument. In that case, I say Delete, but I encourage people to also participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.. Whether or not the bias is intentional, deleting one without deleting the other just seems wrong to me. Feedback ^☎ 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage exists to demonstrate why this specific embassy is notable. Just a run of the mill embassy doing what it does, which is not inherently notable. Ravendrop 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep geo-location, not org. see gps. will you now merge the content on the foreign relations page? or merely delete. what is the notability criteria for embassy buildings, some of which are on the NRHP? there are 100 "diplomatic missions of canada" slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As embassies themselves are not considered inherently notable, the notability criteria is WP:GNG, which means multiple, in-depth, third party sources. These don't appear to exist for this embassy and simple existence is not enough. Considering a Ecuador-Canada Relations page doesn't exist, there is no target to merge to, and nothing to merge anyway, as address and current ambassador are easily found elsewhere on the web. You may make an argument that those could be included on an expanded table on the List of diplomatic missions of Ecuador page, but that would be an issue you would have to raise on the talk their first.

  As for embassies that are located in listed buildings, there isn't a hard and fast rule. Listed buildings that are on city heritage lists are not always deemed notable for stand alone articles, whereas provincial and federally listed buildings usually are. My preference in that case would be to have the page named after the building (if it wasn't always an embassy) and have the X Embassy in Ottawa page redirect to it. But those pages should be dealt with on a case by case basis because no larger consensus, that I am aware of at least, covers them. For what its worth though, Ecuador's Embassy is a couple of offices in a non-listed office building. It is not an entire building itself. Ravendrop 20:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa, since by now it will probably remain a stub. However, it should be noted that the recent wave of embassy-related AfDs would have the effect of reducing the notability of diplomatic missions themselves. That sort of dynamic isn't a particularly encouraging trend for the development of WP content. Dl2000 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa info already there, no sign of stand alone notability. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 6 April 2013 (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.