Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Costa Rica, London

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]