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 delete. sandsteins comment about V and sources is very compelling Spartaz Humbug! 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York

[edit]
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is an identical article at "Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_the_United_States". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Moreover, these Representative Offices are commercial entities. Their staff only have business visas and none of their staff have diplomatic visas. These two offices are commercial entities passing themselves off as diplomatic entities and they are getting free advertising on Wikipedia. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the titles should say so. And what about the commercial status (since none of the staff at either of these Representative Offices have diplomatic visas, they are in the United States with business visas, these offices are passing themselves off as diplomatic entities, which they are not. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, Wikipedia makes it quite clear that commercial entities are not permitted to promote themselves on Wikipedia. There is duplication and this commercial entity passes itself off as a diplomatic entity. Would you like me to raise a separate deletion request concerning its commercial status? This I can do. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy against having articles about commercial entities on Wikipedia, and our article does not claim that this is an officially-recognised diplomatic entity. Whether this mission makes such claims outside of Wikipedia is immaterial to the question of whether we should have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, the first sentence in the article says "The Representative Office of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in New York City is the de facto mission of the TRNC to the United Nations Organization (as well as a de facto Consulate-General)." Does that sound like a commercial organisation to you? To me it looks like Wikipedia not only wholly applauds the passing-off of these Representative Offices as diplomatic entities but encourages the passing-off of these commercial entities as diplomatic offices. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase de facto makes it clear that this is not a legally recognised diplomatic mission. And, anyway, your whole argument here is based on an issue of content, which can be fixed by editing. The issue that hasn't been settled is whether this mission passes our notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, the fact that the entity is being sued in a Class Action makes it notable enough! Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you accept that the subject is "notable enough" then why are you asking for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning the necessity for there being an article per Representative Office of the TRNC which also happens to be a commercial entity. Why do you need two articles for these Representative Offices? They are representing the same thing. They are "de facto" doing the same thing. Bearing in mind that whatever the "de facto" they are doing neither are recognised by the United States or the United Nations and there are no diplomatic conversations going on between any of them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Fut Perf has just rem'd the section about the Class Action at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_New_York
Apparently, Fut Perf doesn't think that the Class Action is notable enough and that it should not be included in any mention of these offices. Well, that puts the notability back in question. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I read through both and they are clearly different. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How are they different? They are both representative offices of a single commercial entity. Both are setup with staff with business visas. Neither has any diplomatic staff. Nor are any of the staff recognised in any diplomatic capacity by the United States or the United Nations. Their only differences are "window-dressing" that they use to pass off their unearned "de-facto" diplomatic status of doing everything except diplomacy. I say again. Why is it necessary to have two articles for two representative offices of a single commercial entity? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, otherwise delete: If it is a representation to the United Nations, then I vote for renaming it so that the name reflect the content. Otherwise there is lack of notability and it can go as a subsection in the main article. -- Ashot  (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate your input on this. The New York office purports to interface to the United Nations. However, that is a sham since the United Nations does not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" nor does it recognise the commercial entity that is called the "TRNC" with "Representative Offices" in New York and Washington. The only thing that is notable about these "Representative Offices" is the pending Class Action against them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me I can understand your motives (and partly share them). However my position is that if there is something of interest to a considerable number of people (regardless of who those people are), Wikipedia should have an article about it. All other info (like legal status, nature of activities, etc.) may be then incorporated within the article so that the reader is aware of it. I prefer to look at Wikipedia not with eyes of a lawyer or judge, but of a person who may once need to learn the information. -- Ashot  (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no reason that I can think of as to why these "Representative Offices" cannot be listed together in one article. Functionally they are no different. Diplomatically they are impotent. Commercially they are one entity. Just because one office claims to interface to the government of the United States and the other office claims to interface to the United Nations (when neither does in actuality) is not sufficient reason to have two separate articles for these offices. As far as my motivations are concerned I have already achieved my objective which is to make sure that everybody knows all of the above (whether or not the Wikipedia community deletes one of the articles or not, is by the by, it still remains that the knowledge that these offices are a sham is now in the public domain). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having been asked for my opinion. let me say that the current inclusion of these articles in the displayed box Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus strongly suggests that Wikipedia is claiming diplomatic status for this office, which is not the case. The box needs to be dropped, and the commercial nature of this office carefully noted in the text. As for notability, there are many Wikipedia pages covering equally insignificant subjects.--Wetman (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Same difference. I will agree to Delete or Merge as long as the Class Action is mentioned in the merged article because there is nothing else that is notable about these "Representative Offices". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We allow individual pages on embassies and consulates on Wikipedia. The fact that the "TRNC" is not recognized by any country except Turkey isn't really an issue here, as we also have articles on a variety of other non-recognized de facto embassies, such as e.g. the American Institute in Taiwan, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and others. Despite not being afforded diplomatic immunity these do play an important role in representing their respective countries, and fulfill many of the consular functions, such as issuing passports and notarizing documents, that official embassies do.
Reading the discussion above I would hope that editors would put more effort into distinguishing between their personal beliefs regarding the legitimacy of the "TRNC" and the issue at hand - whether or not an entity is sufficiently notable to be covered here. Something can be completly illegitimate, morally wrong and unjustified, and still deserve an article on Wikipedia - in fact we have quite a number of such articles. The fact that and article exists is neither an endorsement of nor a justification of its subject.
If the text in the article(s) as such have information in them that is deemed false, then those facts should be corrected but this should not be cause to delete the entire article. Travelbird (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Personal beliefs" have nothing to do with it. There is no reason why two "Representative Offices" that are part of the same commercial entity cannot be written about in one article. The offices cannot be distinguished with the claim that one interfaces diplomatically to the United States and the other interfaces diplomatically with the United Nations because neither have any diplomatic relations with the United States or the United Nations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These offices are not commercial entities. And the people working there are not businessmen despite having a business visa, just in the same way that William Stanton is not a social worker, despite legally being the head of a registered non-profit organization (the American Institute in Taiwan), which also interfaces with the Taiwanese government despite not having diplomatic relations with it. It +is+ possible to talk to meet one another despite not having diplomatic relations! Travelbird (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These offices are a commercial entity without any doubt whatsoever. The official positions of the United States and the United Nations are that there are no diplomatic relations or conversations going on between them and the "TRNC" period. Would you care to provide citations concerning these unofficial diplomatic communications? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It doesn't make any difference whatseover what their purposes and agendas are. They cannot achieve their purposes or agendas because they are not diplomatic entities and have no formal diplomatic relations. You could place a small citrus fruit in the middle of Central Park and call it a diplomatic mission and it will be just as effective as either of these "missions". They are an ineffective business entity that can just as easily be discussed in a single article. I am not disputing notability since I believe that the pending Class Action makes this business entity notable. But there is only one business entity and as such there should be only one article. You wouldn't write an article for every single building owned by Coca Cola. My opinion is not a non-neutral POV. Show me where all of the notable offices of Coca Cola are listed. There are far more notable offices of the business entity called Coca Cola than there are of the business entity called the TRNC. Why don't they get equal consideration? What these "missions" claim to be doing and what they are doing is as big as the difference between the company called Coca Cola and the small citrus fruit in Central Park. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on references: Funnily enough I had placed a whole bunch of references in the article concerning the Class Action and Fut Perf deleted all of it. Now Travelbird has listed one reference from the TRNC PIO. The TRNC has given itself a reference. Any reference from the Republic of Turkey or the "TRNC", concerning this subject, is a self-reference. As I have noted before only the Class Action makes this article notable. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2011 (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.
More