Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1520 New Hampshire Avenue

1520 New Hampshire Avenue

1520 New Hampshire Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The information was removed from Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. and the building itself doesn't meet notability requirements. Articles such as Embassy of Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. and Thomas T. Gaff House combine the architectural, historical, and diplomatic information into one article. APK straight up now tell me 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant information into the embassy article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The nominator is flawed in nominating the article despite it having existed for only a few years, it is displaying an "underconstruction" tag and should at least be given time for improvement. Beside which, there is precedent for seperate articles where the building has its own "claim to fame". I'm not at my own computer so I'm unable to find the articles. The nomination should be withdrawn immediately. HJMitchell You rang? 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think you mean hours, not years. There is precedent for combining the information, as I've already mentioned. APK straight up now tell me 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a hurry! Yes, I meant hours. The precedent to which I refer is 972 Fifth Avenue, Canada House and, I'm lead to believe, a number of other articles. It is my opinion that the information is worthy of its own article as an architectural structure as the embassy cannot do it justice without being labelled as "trivia"- apparently Biruitorul's favourite word. The embassy article needs to focus on the diplomacy and there is, I feel, a use for the information on the building in a separate article. If there was nothing interesting about the building, I would agree with you but there is, in my opinion, enough to warrant an article. HJMitchell You rang? 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or merge I don't think it's a good idea to cover the building and the embassy separately, but if we really have to, so be it. There are enough reliable sources to consider the building notable under WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reliable sources are not discussing the actual building, only the people/organizations that used the building. I added them to the original embassy article to avoid another 2-sentence stub. The information and sources in 1520 New Hampshire Avenue were just copy and pasted; I don't see any evidence of the building's notability. Ref #1 is about the embassy. Ref #2 is about property value and being located in a historic district (almost every building in Dupont has a high property value and contributing property status; this is nothing special). Refs #3-7 have nothing to do with the actual building and don't even include a full sentence covering the topic. They're directories and other material I used to simply show past ownership. APK straight up now tell me 15:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm perfectly honest, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, the embassy article was struggling to cover bothe the architectural heritage of the building, which is why I split it. The precedents to which I alluded are very similar cases. The building has certainly had notable owners and is of significance in that it's been used for more than just the embassy, so it's not necessarily appropriate to have its only coverage in the embassy article. HJMitchell You rang? 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's an interesting situation. The Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. article was a mix of information on the building and on the embassy before HJ Mitchell dealt with the matter and separated out the information. However, to be taken into consideration is that the Embassy article was very new, and had simply gathered together some basic facts about the embassy and it's location. Early days yet, and it remains to be seen how the embassy article develops, but information about the embassy building is certainly very appropriate in the embassy article. Also to be taken into consideration is the notability of the building by itself. I'm not convinced that the references as they stand do assert notability enough that the building has to be dealt with as an article separate from the embassy. The other Dupont Circle embassy articles are dealt with as one unit. My conclusion is to remerge the material. It can either be 1520 New Hampshire Avenue or Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C., but having two short articles, in which material is duplicated, is unnecessary. As the refs indicate that Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. is the more notable, then Merge to Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. is the most appropriate solution. SilkTork *^YES! 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A good point well made. However, I believe that it is worth having an article on the building in its own right. The embassy article could, I think, could be improved and expanded, as could this one, without, for example, architectural information being branded "trivia". It was my intention to revisit both and add more information but I shall await the conclusion of this debate before doing so. HJMitchell You rang? 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Who described the architectural information as "trivia"? Have you been able to locate a source that specifically covers the building? APK straight up now tell me 05:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas not, though I'm still looking. It is difficult to find information. Maybe if the article were to be merged back, it would be better than nothing. However, there is definite notability of the building outside of the Jamaican Embassy. There must be information out there but I'm running out of places to search. I wonder if I might be on the wrong side of the Atlantic. HJMitchell You rang? 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)