- 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 merge to Barbados–Canada relations. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
High Commission of Barbados, Ottawa
- High Commission of Barbados, Ottawa ( | 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. embassies are not inherently notable. This article simply confirms its existence and names of commissioners. LibStar ( talk) 14:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Most important Embassy of Barbados since Canada remains Barbados' most important trading partner. Since the global recession. I was waiting 'til after the elections hoping the DLP would be gone but I now remember I have to get back on top of this. CaribDigita ( talk) 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Most important Embassy of Barbados since Canada remains Barbados' most important trading partner" need some sources to back notability of the actual embassy, not the bilateral relations.
LibStar (
talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just got out of the hospital last night after a week in E.R. I will be adding sources and bringing it up to par with the US embassy article and London ones which I also did. CaribDigita ( talk) 18:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Most important Embassy of Barbados since Canada remains Barbados' most important trading partner" need some sources to back notability of the actual embassy, not the bilateral relations.
LibStar (
talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Barbados-Canada relations, while this may be the most important embassy, it can be summarised there, it is not sufficiently notable for its own standalone article. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
No worse than most of the other Embassy articles in Ottawa. i.e. Jamaica's isn't any longer. CaribDigita ( talk) 18:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 03:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect (though I wouldn't be opposed to deletion as an unlikely search term) - I don't think there's any doubt that Barbados–Canada relations is one of those unusual "x-y relations" about an actually notable relationship. But the information in the article just repeats content from the High Commission's website or covers the publication of a book by the High Commission (though you have to question how critical the relationship must be if the High Commissioner has time to publish a book while in office). While the relationship might be notable, the institution isn't, nor is the physical building itself. Stalwart 111 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Or to the contrary. Barbados & Canada's ties are so important the High Commissioner made the time to publish. Not only that, but the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote the preface in the book.
- Also 80% of the International business sector of Barbados belongs to Canadian companies.
Business Monday: BIBA following recent measures in last Canadian budget with potential to impact B’dos (quote)“While we recognise that these new measures are not targeted specifically to Barbados, 80 percent of our international business comes out of Canada thus our jurisdiction will feel the impact of this more than others, therefore it is up to us to be more agile than any other time in the history of our international business sector. We have several pieces of corporate legislation in the pipeline that must be pushed through and put on the books that we can simply exploit those in other niche areas and markets for which Barbados is a perfect fit.”(end quote) As the role of the U.S. diminishes, things are shifting towards Canada in the region. Note the Prime Minister of Canada wrote that book's forward passage.
[1] So I guess the Prime Minister of Canada isn't busy either?
CaribDigita (
talk) 06:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- you cannot !vote twice.
LibStar (
talk) 06:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've actually made our point for us - those are reasons that
Barbados–Canada relations is notable and should be kept. But those are not reasons why the building is notable. Important decisions are made and notable relationships are maintained in buildings across the world every day. That doesn't make the buildings notable. Add all of those well-sourced claims should be added to that article. You've got good information but it is being presented in the wrong place.
Stalwart
111 06:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Notability is determined by coverage and references. This article actually SO FAR has more references and more coverage than most of the other diplomatic missions in Ottawa so no less notable than the other shorter diplomatic missions mentioned in Ottawa.
CaribDigita (
talk) 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, notability is determined by the depth and quality of coverage, not just a sheer volume of passing mentions. Many of the references provided are passing mentions in directories that confirm when the building opened and where it is located. Others provide coverage of minor diplomatic events held in the building. Those wouldn't normally be considered "significant coverage" which is the standard by which
WP:GNG is judged. Those sources that do provide significant coverage of anything relate more to the relationship between the two countries rather than the building itself. Again, you seem to be missing the point - there is a place for the information you have collected in the article about the relationship between the two countries.
synthesising minor diplomatic mentions of the building together with significant coverage of the relationship and suggesting it makes the building notable is a bit silly. For the building (or the institution) to be notable we would need significant coverage of the building - the architecture, construction, awards, history, previous occupants and any role the building, in particular, played in significant events. We don't have anything close to that now.
Stalwart
111 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is article is about the Office of the High Commissioner. If this article was about the building it would be 55 Metcalfe Street. And would look more like
Category:Diplomatic_residences_in_Ottawa which are purely building centric/ building based.
CaribDigita (
talk) 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no, it's not. It's about both. If you say, "I'm going to the High Commission" you're not opening up some sort of Vulcan mind-meld with the High Commissioner himself - you're going to the building. Otherwise the article would be titled High Commissioner of Barbados in Ottawa or Office of the High Commissioner of Barbados to Ottawa. The term "High Commission" is generally considered to mean both the building and the institution as I noted above. What sources do you say confer notability on the institution in a manner that justifies a separate article? Stalwart 111 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is article is about the Office of the High Commissioner. If this article was about the building it would be 55 Metcalfe Street. And would look more like
Category:Diplomatic_residences_in_Ottawa which are purely building centric/ building based.
CaribDigita (
talk) 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, notability is determined by the depth and quality of coverage, not just a sheer volume of passing mentions. Many of the references provided are passing mentions in directories that confirm when the building opened and where it is located. Others provide coverage of minor diplomatic events held in the building. Those wouldn't normally be considered "significant coverage" which is the standard by which
WP:GNG is judged. Those sources that do provide significant coverage of anything relate more to the relationship between the two countries rather than the building itself. Again, you seem to be missing the point - there is a place for the information you have collected in the article about the relationship between the two countries.
synthesising minor diplomatic mentions of the building together with significant coverage of the relationship and suggesting it makes the building notable is a bit silly. For the building (or the institution) to be notable we would need significant coverage of the building - the architecture, construction, awards, history, previous occupants and any role the building, in particular, played in significant events. We don't have anything close to that now.
Stalwart
111 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Notability is determined by coverage and references. This article actually SO FAR has more references and more coverage than most of the other diplomatic missions in Ottawa so no less notable than the other shorter diplomatic missions mentioned in Ottawa.
CaribDigita (
talk) 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've actually made our point for us - those are reasons that
Barbados–Canada relations is notable and should be kept. But those are not reasons why the building is notable. Important decisions are made and notable relationships are maintained in buildings across the world every day. That doesn't make the buildings notable. Add all of those well-sourced claims should be added to that article. You've got good information but it is being presented in the wrong place.
Stalwart
111 06:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- you cannot !vote twice.
LibStar (
talk) 06:26, 5 March 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.