Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, 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 Speedy delete as G5. 331dot (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:ORG /WP:GEOFEAT. Embassies are not inherently notable (refer Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Santiago, Articles for deletion/Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka, Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine). The sources provided are either mentions in lists or primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, and don't listen to the Dan arndts of the world: To any and all users who come across this discussion: simply put, User:Dan arndt is on a crusade. He does not believe embassy articles in Washington, DC are up to snuff, and has spent the past hour adding maintenance tags to any he himself, and only he himself, deemed inadequate. As for why this article is being nominated for deletion and not the others, this has everything to do with targeting me, as he did during obstructionist behavior while the article was on draft. Not having an article for the A&B embassy caused much confusion, because they had moved out of the Caribbean Chancery in Washington, D.C.. Despite what users like Dan arndt will whine and complain about, an article like this does its simple job and deserves to stay. He has thrown everything, from "other stuff exists" to "embassies aren't inherently notable" and every other bad-faith argument my way in order to get his way. The fact that he singled out this article specifically for deletion is, I believe, specifically about getting revenge on me and my efforts. (If any admin happens to be reading this, look into him, he's exactly the type of user who makes editing frustrating for the rest of us.) If this gets deleted, prepare for all the other embassy articles he just tagged to be deleted, as well.WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please contact Google for any issues involving Google searches. Wikipedia has no control over Google and we are not concerned with search results.  Can you respond to the policy based arguments made instead of attacking the messenger? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, how bout this: Notice that none of the embassies User:Dan arndt mentioned are in Washington, D.C. That's because the embassy-in-DC articles have a reputation of excellence and are considered significant due to the US geopolitcal preeminence. Articles about embassies in Washington are granted more than embassies in other world capital. The argument I'm hearing is that inaccurate information (such as still listing the embassy as the Caribbean Chancery) or no information (such as lacking an article) are preferable to putting legitimate information out there, flying wildly against the values of Wikipedia. I would also say that this isn't a Google issue as much as it is a "Wikipedia had inaccurate info that was affecting other websites" issue, but I believe that has now been remedied with the creation of this new article. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, so please correct me if I am wrong - are you saying that embassies in Washington are automatically notable because they are in the United States, which is more important than any other country in the world? If however you arguing that the function of the embassy is notable then that information should be contained within an article on the international relations between the two countries in question not on an embassy page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not responding to that, you're literally putting words in my mouth. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please offer reliable sources that this specific embassy has a particular importance that merits a standalone article, and not a mention in the article about the diplomatic relations between the US and A&B. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there was no article, where is the information about the incorrect address coming from? 331dot (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of inaccurate info about the embassy before I got involved. A lot of articles that linked to it had inaccurate information (like still listing the embassy as the Caribbean Chancery), but I have corrected them throughout this process. Moreover, the fact that there's an article about this specific embassy confirms it (i.e. that it is now a separate entity from the Caribbean Chancery) for all time going forward. Also, am I allowed to bring up the articles for other embassies in Washington, or is the "OTHER STUFF EXISTS" red alert button going to be pressed and my entire argument shut down and not allowed to proceed...? 08:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiIndustrialComplex (talk • contribs)
 * , you should be careful about your comments here. I remind you on WP:AGF and WP:NPA, further Dan Arndt is by far not alone - I would have rejected your draft also with the same reasons like Dan gave to you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience, more experienced users will trample all over you unless you raise a stink, as was demonstrated here. It has happened to me more times than I can possibly count. This website has a massive problem with insularity and meritocracy. When I see things I don't like and frustrating, bureaucratic behavior is the default over simple human compassion and mercy, I calls it as I sees it. I've stood my ground, and regret nothing. I don't really care if that offends the whole "more experienced users get to act crappy to you, but DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT being crappy to them, let's all hug and sing Kum Ba Yah, and if you don't, you're BANNED!" mindset. The hypocrisy of this website and its editor base truly astounds me sometimes... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, Redirect, or Merge. The nom makes a strong case that embassies are not inherently notable and lists some relevant deletions discussions to show similar outcomes. The references fail fo be what we require. I am open to being convinced otherwise should suitable references be both found and added to the article. The defence by the contributing editor is almost an ad hominem attack on the nom and should be discouraged. Arguments here must be strictly on a policy basis. I can't improve on the nom's quotation of policy  Fiddle   Faddle  08:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there are a number of AfD debates relating to embassies in Washington D. C., such as Articles for deletion/Embassy of Papua New Guinea in Washington, D.C., Articles for deletion/Embassy of Grenada in Washington, D.C., Articles for deletion/Embassy of the Federated States of Micronesia in Washington, D.C. Dan arndt (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet none of those articles he listed were actually permenantly deleted. Huh. How 'bout that. Weird. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, how come you get to quote precedent and when I do, I get "OTHER STUFF EXISTS"....? All these links are for discussions that happened 8 years ago for articles that were eventually made. More pointless posturing... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment they were re-created in ignorance of the fact that they had been previously deleted. Noting that each one of them still doesn't address the issue of notability. The point I was trying to establish is that Washington D. C. is no more important than the capital of any other country. Dan arndt (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so if I had just created this article in "ignorance," whatever that means it's automatically not even considered for deletion. Good to know. Can you please direct me to more resources regarding the finer points of WP:If an article is created in ignorance of the fact that they had been previously deleted, they automatically stay, no discussion? I'm having a hard time locating it. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The most successful defences of deletions are made without the perceived need to rebut every point. Those discussions were closed as merges or redirects. Deletion discussions, while not setitng a precedent exaclty, mirror policy in 99% of the cases. Mistakes are also made.  Fiddle   Faddle  08:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom or merge with Antigua and Barbuda–United States relations. Theroadislong (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom or merge with Antigua and Barbuda–United States relations CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have flagged the mainspace article for a history merge form the draft after the AfD is determined. There is editing history here that should not be lost. I have also redirected that draft to the main space article, declining the CSD. Fiddle   Faddle  09:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User created an article which is a copy and paste of a draft which had been declined multiple times.  Grey joy talk 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By the very bully who opened up deletion discussion about this very article...? Don't be blind, do your homework. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have received yet another formal warning about your behaviour. My warning on your talk page was a direct result of this post. May I remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL Fiddle   Faddle  17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep: I have no opinion on whether the embassy passes our notability criterion, but this is a poor nom: a Google News search for 'Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda' has many results, many of which refer to the Washington embassy. It is up to the nom to look at this material and give us a sense of what encyclopediacally useful reliable content is there. As it stands, this nom is asking AfD participants to do this work unaided. Given that the supply of AfDs outstrips the supply of deletion-policy-skilled labour here at AfD, we are better off just closing these AfDs, without prejudice for future, properly formed AfDs in the future. Speedy keep, because the faster this unhelpful nom is closed, the better. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I very much support this opinion (particularly the statement that calls this process "unhelpful" and calls out some users for not aiding me in any capacity) and encourage all users to consider it. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, I did actually undertake a search of whether there any reliable secondary sources for the 'Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda' in Washington D. C. and like the article's creator I couldn't find any. If you check Google News search for 'Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda' you will see that almost all relate to the US Embassy in Antigua & Barbuda not the Antigua and Barbuda embassy in the US. This issue was raised repeatedly when the article was a AfC and the article's creator rather than addressing the issue and the concerns about lack of references/sources chose to ignore those facts and create the article anyway, hence the current AfD. If you can find any specific reliable secondary sources that support the article's notability then feel free to identify them. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Antigua and Barbuda–United States relations. I can see that WikiIndustrialComplex is getting a little upset at the current AfD discussion. Wikipedia is not serious business. As often occurs with Embassy and Diplomat articles, there seems to be very little rhyme or reason to what stays and what is deleted. WIC makes a good point that moving out of the Caribbean Chancery and buying its own property (and the news coverage that came with that move) is an interesting development. However, there is not enough content here to have a separate article from the one on relations between the two countries. Here's an interesting example: Draft:Embassy of Moldova, Israel. This article has more written about it than the article we are discussing, but it would probably suffer the same fate in AfD, as the sourcing is all primary sources from each country, the tone is promotional, and the information could be better addressed in an article about relations between the two countries. Perhaps a case can be made about the building/address they are using being notable, but that is not currently addressed in the article. Bottom line/TL;DR: In order for the user's hard work not to be lost, it might be best to add it to the existing article about relations between the two countries. Bkissin (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some want to delete the article before I've had the chance to add anything. Unlike User: Dan arndt, I happen to live very close to DC, and would love to drive in to take a picture of and gather more history on the physical structure itself, as I'm sure the embassy would love to provide. Thank you for also acknowledging how upsetting this, particularly the behavior of other users, has been for me. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why something like the draftspace or a user's WP:SANDBOX exist, to allow users to tinker with an article that may not be "ready for Prime Time" on the mainspace. Pre-COVID, I was living in DC as well, and there are certainly plenty of stories among the old buildings here, especially in and around Georgetown. If you want to take the information and bring it back to draftspace to work on it, or create a sandbox to work on it there, or even add the information to the article on relations between the two countries and spin it off into its own article when there's enough information on it, those are all good ways to deal with that. is not a bad person, nor do they have some sort of personal vendetta against you. They are just trying to make sure that articles that are live on WP are of good quality and meet certain guidelines. It's important not to take the percieved tone of other editors too seriously, as the anonymity of the internet and the fact that many users have difficulty effectively communicating with other people can lead to some poorly phrased situations. (Not casting aspersions on any user in this discussion, of course). Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment If the user's biggest concern is that Google Maps lists the wrong address, I will file a request with Google Maps to have that changed (Not as a Wikipedia user, but as someone who uses Google Maps). Additionally, they can go to [openstreetmap.org OpenStreetMap] and make those changes as well. Bkissin (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say that my greater concern is more that the lack of article will only create confusion, or will still imply that the A&B embassy is still at the Caribbean Chancery. Without an article and sources that state that the A&B embassy is, indeed, separate, only more confusion will follow, and we'll be right back here very shortly. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On that note, I checked Google Maps and it puts the Embassy at the correct address. At the Chancery location there was a note about the Barbuda Embassy, which I requested to have deleted. In fact, it doesn't look like any nation still uses the Caribbean Chancery for its offices, and each have their own embassy location, so I'm having that particular article deleted as well. Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator Creator of the article has been blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean the creating editor Fiddle   Faddle  21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.