Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has very little claim to notability other than the fact that it's an embassy. This AFD stems directly from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Ottawa. The article fails WP:N/WP:ORG. Feedback ^☎ 18:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not an org but a location, and building, see the gps. i see you are systematically deleting the embassy articles, why? are not geo-locations presumed notable? when you merge with "foreign relations" are you then incorporating the information or merely deleting? slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

police stations and parks are locations too, should we create WP articles for all? LibStar (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Embassies are not inherently notable and not every location simply do to its existence is notable either. (I think thats what Slowking4 is suggesting, but I am not sure. Either way it would be far more likely to qualify under ORG than as a location). An embassy is not a town or a geographical feature, which are inherently notable. Additionally, an embassy is a "concept" not necessarily a physical location. They are not tied to a specific location, and regularly new ones open. (For example see Embassy of Canada, Washington, D.C. which covers all the various locations the embassy has been located). Considering the age of this building and that it has hosted several different diplomatic missions, there may be offline sources that I'm not finding, but I'm not going to go as far as assume they exist. Ravendrop 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Changing vote per doncram's thoughtful explanation on the likelihood of sources below. To be clear my vote change is purely because of the fact that s/he has given a convincing argument that offline sources likely exist and the building is likely notable (the point that a building's owner may veto historical listing status makes a heck of a lot of sense to me). I still stand by my previous belief that embassies by themselves are not inherently notable and must be proven based either on the notability of the building they occupy or other GNG coverage. I am qualifying my keep !vote with weak, merely because the title of the possible offline sources do not 100% guarantee coverage of this particular building, but do make it more likely than not that they do. Ravendrop 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment i'm just asking the question; what is the criteria? since this deletion merge campaign is on. why the use of notability org, since this clearly does not apply? you have a couple of hundred of these, why not mass delete, or start a conversation at RfC? embassies tend to be in historic buildings, a nexus for political protest. people are adding consulate information to embassy articles, if not there, where should it go? slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 14:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you could merge all the embassy articles into the list article, but then it would be too big. what is the criteria for split embassy articles, so that they will stand future challenges such as this? slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't criteria other than GNG. I was merely suggesting that ORG (as an embassy is a political body in way, which are sort of covered by ORG) was a better judgment than what I thought you were arguing that every building/location was notable due just to its existence. I'd argue just to stick to GNG though, and as others have convinced me below, I think this particular one meets that. Ravendrop 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, there is a broad consensus for keeping geo-locations. if an embassy chooses a property to represent their country, it implies a presumption that sources will exist, even if in the library special collections. some of the buildings are serial embassies for different countries i.e. Embassy of Uzbekistan, Washington, D.C. it would be encyclopedic to maintain a list of those locations, separate from the diplomatic services or foreign policy of those countries. maybe we need a written guideline for building notability other than GNG. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While embassies aren't inherently notable, they probably get a lot more coverage than average buildings; I don't have any sources, so I won't say "keep" on this, but I'd strongly suspect that this building has sufficient coverage to make it notable. If we could find coverage for the building, we might as well cover the Ecuadorians as part of the building article. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but as you mention, the burden's on finding the sources first. I'm more than happy to change my vote if sources are found. Ravendrop 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source identifying noted architect George Oakley Totten, Jr. as the building's designer. He also designed NRHP-listed Hungarian embassy building next door. This building seems not to be NRHP-listed, but seems likely to be NRHP-eligible, being built in same era and by same tag team Mary Foote Henderson and Totten, who created multiple embassy and other buildings, as described in next door's NRHP nomination document. There are more sources mentioned in NRHP nomination document of nearby Sixteenth Street Historic District. I would like to see offline sources cited in the 2 NRHP docs, including:

"Vertical Files on 16th Street and the Hendersons, located at the Columbia Historical Society and the Washingtoniana Room, Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, Washington, D.C."
"The Columbia Historical Society. Files. (1307 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, B.C.)."
"Henderson, Mary Foote. Remarks About the Management of Washlngton in General and 16th Street in Particular. Priuately published, Washington, D.C, 1927."
"Caemmerer, H.P. Washington, The National Capital, Washington: 1932 (Government Printing Office)*"
"Glassie, Robert. "Victorian Homes in Washington." The Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Vol. 63-65, p. 320."
"Jacobsen, H.N. 9 ed. A Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C. New York; Praeger, 1965."

I think it's quite reasonable to expect that there exists adequate offline coverage for quite a good article on this Ecuador embassy building. Development is furthered by Keeping the article; revisit in five years maybe. --do ncr am 11:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions for you as architecture isn't an area I'm hugely knowledgable on.
1. The sources you list seem to be all related to the next door building or very general, obviously with out being able to see them, do have any idea if they would have in-depth (like the info included on the pdf you linked to), or would it be just general passing mentions, with in depth coverage focused on the NRHP building because it was listed/considered a better example, etc.?

2. How common is it to list two buildings, that to me at least, seem to be very similar and that are side by side on the NRHP? Do they tend to only select "the best of the best" and not include other example? Ravendrop 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: To be clear I don't know what those off-line sources have to say, but i am making a semi-educated guess that they will have about as much coverage of this 2437 Fifteenth St. building as they do for the 2435 Fifteenth St. one that is already NRHP-listed. It's possible 2435 became listed already because it is a better example, but on the other hand NRHP listing is somewhat random, having to do with what the current owner prefers (current owner has to support listing, can veto a listing initiated by any outsider). It's possible that there were incompatible renovations of the 2437 property that make it less historically correct, less eligible for NRHP listing. Or it is possible that there is less documentation available; having intact documentation is key for getting listed. But the fact that 2435 got listed, and also Meridian Hall at 2501, also a Henderson-Totten work, mostly suggests that 2437 could be listed too. Abut your second question, it is very common for side-by-side buildings to become NRHP listed, individually or in a big listing together. If listed together, they would all be "contributing buildings" in a historic district, as was done for many nearby 16th Street properties. It is more work to list each one individually, obviously. There seems to be a number of buildings created by Mary Foote Henderson and Totten which all could possibly be listed in a future historic district collection (they don't have to be side-by-side, it can be a discontinous district) if someone wanted to run with that theme and to deal with all the owners. Again, i don't know the exact merits of this building so whether it could be NRHP-listed in the future or not, but my guess is yes. And, my stronger guess is that there exists documentation adequate for a pretty good Wikipedia article for it. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 22:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Embassy buildings like this one tend to be local landmarks. As Doncram indicates, additional sourcing is likely to develop for the building. And as Nyttend says, we might as well cover the Ecuadorians, too. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment this building is similar to Embassy Building No. 10 by same architect. would have to go to print source about architect to find references. the embassies have less incentive to list on NRHP. sovereignty issues? Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. embassies should be notable. TheBlueCanoe 22:49, 7 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.