Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Dublin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Embassy of the United States in Dublin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nothing stands out as notable about the embassy itself. any relevant information can be covered in Ireland–United States relations LibStar (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, along with picture, to the relations article; not notable on its own, but worth a mention in that one. - Biruitorul Talk 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, just as notable as other embassies or does this one have to be bombed to make the list? Mikebar (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As notable as this one? Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_20. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No need for a separate article. There was a time when I would have suggested a merge, but my experience is that the "m-word" leads to a cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs type reaction.  In response to Mikebar, I would say that embassies are not "inherently notable"; some can generate independent news coverage and they can become notable.  Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep On architectural grounds alone, the building has been the subject of discussion (simple Google book search), with Nikolaus Pevsner describing it as neo-Gaudi, which wasn't a compliment for any of the buildings he was in the habit of describing as such. It was of the first modernist buildings in Dublin, just about predating Liberty Hall and winning an award from An Taisce (the Irish National Trust), although the source doesn't mention the fact that the building was a contentious issue; many critics thinking then, as now, that while it might be architecturally meritorious, it does stick out like a sore thumb in the midst of the Georgian architecture of the area.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as discussed by Flowerpotman, it is the architectural aspect that is notable and significant, not the fact that it is the embassy. It would be worthy of inclusion even if it were vacant.  Drawn Some (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, there are sources out there to build on (errr... so to speak). The embassy is scheduled to move, but the building would remain notable. Because Johansen is highly notable in his own right, his works are the subject of scholarly (and non-scholarly) works. Just noticed an article where the building is used as a counter-example in a discussion on embassies (and how not to build them) in the Guardian . Passing reference, of course, but even the fact that it is used in a news article in a newspaper in another country almost 50 years after construction would tend to suggest that it just might be notable. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per FlowerpotMan. Substantial architectural notability and also the work of a substantially notable architect.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  —  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 19:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many, many other embassies, consulates and what not have articles in their won right and to claim this one, for some reason, falls foul of a guideline that that is met by some obscure consulate is ludicrous. For example Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. has its own article. Granted, as it stands, I practically wrote it, but it's the only example I have to hand. unless of course, we're proposing to delete the article of every embassy on wikipedia? HJMitchell    You rang?  20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Flowerpotman and that the United States and Ireland have a long and integral relationship and one nation's primary emissary in the other is very important.--Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Politically, the American Embassy is one of the two most important embassies in Dublin (the other being that of the only nation with which we share a land-border), and on those grounds alone notability is more than met, not least because of the sifnificance of the embassy as a venue for so many protests. Additionally, the architectural significance of the building is enough to establish notability even if its use was non-notable, and (as mentioned above) the security  flaws of the building make it notable as an example of currently-deprecated style of ebmassy-building. (On a POV note, it's a lot prettier than the fortress of a British embassy). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentIronically, details on the next embassy will be much easier to source when it is built (in the Internet Age), but going back to just the architectural emphasis, both the current embassy and the first embassy (when the Ambassasor "lived over the shop"), which was notable in its own right before use as an embassy, can be expanded and linked into external considerations both Irish and American. The current buiding was part of the American embassy-building spree of the 50s and 60s, for example. Also the first purpose built embassy in Ireland, if I am not mistaken; every one else using the pre-existing stately piles in Ballsbridge or places nearby. And there is the factoid that the concrete lattice on the outside is supposed to evoke the weave of an Aran sweater (or something) :). Article needs expansion, of course; I have some stuff to add when I get around to parsing it into intelligible English. (On a POV note: it isn't that the current building is a bad building, it just doesn't fit in to the Victorian character of the area - not Georgian as I inexplicably said before.. that's further down the road) FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Architecturally notable and important part of American - Irish relations. Could probably do with a bit of expansion G  ain  Line  ♠♥ 10:48, 6 May 2009 (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.