Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Commission of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, London


 * 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   no consensus. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

High Commission of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. the article merely confirms its existence and embassies are not inherently notable. there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is the embassy of a small nation. As a member of the Commonealth, it has a High Commission from the governement, not an embassy from the the head of state: that would be an embassy from the Queen to herself!  We have Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, though the post seems to be a multiple one, covering 8 Eastern Caribbean States: see List of High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Barbados.  I do not know enough about the arrangement in the opposite direction to see what to do.  It could be the answer is to redirect to the equivalent Barbadoes (or other) article, covering all the missions of the Associated States.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * being an embassy or high commission does not guarantee notability. There is also no significant coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - embassies and high commissions are not inherently notable. Like other organisations they must meet WP:ORGDEPTH to fulfil our inclusion criteria. This one does not.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. My research indicates that based on nominator's rationale the majority of a thousand+ of articles included within the category and subcategories of Category:Diplomatic missions should also be deleted. Can anyone speak to that? Is this article different or are you using this as a test run for future afd's? I understand my point borders on Other stuff exists, but I think this is an issue that must be addressed considering there is a huge scheme of articles about missions with similar sourcing/coverage issues.
 * Perhaps the reason why all these articles are accepted on Wikipedia is because diplomatic missions are government administrative agencies and articles about the missions are simply spin-offs from the articles about the actual government. In the larger scheme of things it may just make more sense for each diplomatic mission to have a separate article. -- Pink Bull  20:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually very simple. Over the years there have been efforts to basically "spam" Wikipedia with pages and pages and pages of information about non-notable buildings, simply because they have (even for a short period) housed or functioned as a diplomatic mission from one country to another. In some instances these became articles about the relationship itself - often useful information about notable subjects but nothing to do with the buildings themselves. Many (at AFD) have been merged to their respective x-x relations articles or have simple been deleted because information about the buildings have been included in the appropriate articles already. Many diplomatic missions have been established in very old buildings in very old parts of their respective cities and so are notable for their architecture. Some buildings were specially designed by award-winning architects from their respective countries. Some have been the focus of major events (like the Ecuadorian Embassy in London or the US Embassy in Tehran). Those missions are generally considered notable. But part of one floor in a large commercial office building in the middle of a CBD is not notable just because the tenant happens to be another country's department of foreign affairs. The relationships between countries are often notable (though sometimes not) but the buildings themselves are not inherently notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood that the subject of the article is the diplomatic mission and the mission's physical location (even if it is in some forlorn basement) does not affect its notability. -- Pink Bull  00:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is inevitably the problem. The article can't be about the mission's work - that content already exists (in most cases) in the x-x relations articles for the two countries in question. In this instance we're in the ridiculous situation of having no Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations article but we do have Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations with 13 sub-categories and we have this silly article about a nondescript building in London. I'd be fine with a merge to a newly created "relations" article. Often in these discussions we try to make the distinction between the building and the institution. But we don't seem to have coverage allowing either of those things to meet WP:GNG.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations. You know what? It really was ridiculous that we had an article for the building but not for the relationship itself which has a 300-year history. So I went ahead and created the article which now includes specific mention of this mission (both building and institution). There was (and still is) absolutely no reason to have this article. Strongly suggest a merge to the new article.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:58, 27 June 2014 (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.