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 Nicaragua–United States relations. Daniel (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Managua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No information about the embassy, content fork of Nicaragua–United States relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Nicaragua–United States relations: like we've done with all the others. No independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nicaragua. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Granted, there's not a lot of coverage, but TicoTimes, La Prensa, La Prensa 2, Miami Herald should be sufficient for meeting WP:GNG. Apparently the grounds outside the old US embassy were also the theatre of a military display of force by the Nicaraguan regime when United States invaded Panama: Deseret News, UPI. Pilaz (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources you’ve presented basically attest the entirely unremarkable fact that the US embassy functions inside a routine office building from 2007.
  • If you look at Category:Office buildings completed in 2007, most of those are skyscrapers, one is the distinctly shaped headquarters of FIFA, while another is designed by Frank Gehry.
  • What exactly distinguishes this building and makes it fit for a standalone article? (If possible, let’s think beyond the mere existence of routine coverage; of course Central American media was going to note the opening of a new US embassy in the region.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If the US Embassy in Managua is the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources as described by the GNG, then it is presumed notable. Looking at other articles in AfD discussions is largely unhelpful as arguments tend to devolve into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think other articles need to be nominated, feel free to, but arguing for keeping/deleting articles based on the existence of other better/worse sourced articles is usually not a productive way to go. Pilaz (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • A few months ago, a new supermarket opened in Liverpool, an event covered by three different independent media outlets. Should that individual supermarket have its own article? This is why I argue for taking a holistic approach to the question, rather than applying GNG by rote, but I suppose we’ve both made our point. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I suppose you're right, the jury is still out on whether Liverpool supermarkets have received coverage for being surrounded by T-55s as part of a standoff related to another regional conflict! Pilaz (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the six-tank standoff in 1989 is notable, it should certainly have its own article. The event does not, however, lend notability to the building at its centre. The embassy itself does indeed receive a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources, but this coverage is routine, lacking WP:DEPTH. And in many cases, the true subject of coverage are the relations between the two nations, rather than the largely-symbolic building embodying this relationship. So when we apply GNG, I have trouble seeing standalone notability for the building or even for the political body that occupies it beyond that of the bilateral relationship. I do, however, see some verifiable, encyclopedic content that isn't in the Nicaragua–United States relations page, hence my preference for merging rather than merely redirecting. Owen× ☎ 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:DEPTH only applies to articles about events, much like WP:LASTING, so it's only the GNG that's relevant here. Pilaz (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources in the article and the articles presented for GNG are routine since one is very brief, one is just about the event that a new building was opened, one isn't really on the building at all, and the last one paywalled me but looked like a press release. No additional good sources in the article. I'm fine with an AtD but don't think this should be in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Nicaragua–United States relations: all the content of the article currently circles around this topic, with nothing really notable about the embassy building itself. Rehsarb (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2024 (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.