- 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 - boldly closing after collegial discussion and equally bold redirect made any further discussion moot (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Representative of Montserrat, London (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:ORG. this does not even have embassy or consulate status. And it is only an office within the building pictured not the whole building. Also nominating:
- Representative of Saint Helena, London
LibStar (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an account to vote. --RaviC (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]- anon IP voting is permitted, LibStar (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - neither is a notable building, institution or organisation given that neither meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart111 00:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe the official government of a British overseas territory is notable. Other non-sovereign representations, such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office have articles here. I don't see why this should be an exception. --RaviC (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And... what? Nobody (nobody at all) is suggesting the government of that territory isn't notable. What has been suggested is that a nondescript office representing that Government in another country isn't inherently notable. Like everything else, it needs to meet WP:GNG and in this case doesn't. Did you even read the article? St★lwart111 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Could the deletion-nominator please remind us of an alternative treatment possible, which was the result implemented in several similar AFDs. I have seen other AFDs about London embassies, and have seen several of them conclude with move or redirect to some obvious target, but I forget what that is. Perhaps there is a standard type of article on the nation-to-nation relationship, which has not always been created, but is obviously a keeper, and this should be moved/redirected to that. It seems inefficient for new AFD editors to have to consider this kind of issue again and again, without guidance. I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics just now. --doncram 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to the standard type of article that has resolved many similar London embassy AFDs. --doncram 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative to a couple of the others was that I created bilateral relations articles and they were redirected there. In other cases, others have created them. I created Saint Kitts and Nevis–United Kingdom relations and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations as examples. I was frustrated that articles for non-notable embassies had been created while articles about notable relations remained redlinks. I don't support keeping these unless those articles are created - feel free to do so and I'll happily support your suggestion. St★lwart111 22:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Okay then with this AFD, move the article to Montserrat-United Kingdom relations or any other okay name for the bilateral relations and develop a little bit, e.g. perhaps from this google book about Montserrat and England dynamics of culture and this source about Montserrat and United Kingdom relations, including how Montserrat is some type of overseas territory of the United Kingdom and how the U.K. considers its relations, in 2002, and I assume lots more sources from:
- and then the embassy article would be a redirect to that and the embassy could be mentioned, or not. If/when the embassy is itself found to be more individually notable, say for occupying some historic building or having some important event there, then re-develop the redirect into a separate article. This is best way to resolve the AFD easily, without deleting contribution(s), without offending contributor(s), and leading to more productive development. IMHO the AFD is not needed; it would have been possible to simply make the move and develop a bit, without imposing costs of AFD (possible offense to contributors, use/waste of AFD editors' attention, etc.). Hope this helps. --doncram 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine and I'd be happy with that solution once that article is created. So many of these ended as no consensus because they deserved to be deleted but nobody could be bothered to create the articles to redirect them to. I created a couple of them and still the AFDs ended as no consensus because people couldn't even be bothered contributing to the discussion, even when pinged to reconsider previous opinions. I'll support a redirection/merger once that target article exists. Until then, this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria and should be deleted as no genuine alternative to deletion exists. St★lwart111 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, moved to Montserrat-United Kingdom relations, and edited partway towards being on revised topic name. Keeps photo of the embassy. I think this AFD can be closed keep / redirected. --doncram 21:22, 7 September 2014 (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.