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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus as to what should be done about this article. There is clearly not a consensus to delete. The support for keeping an article invokes a thread of sufficiency from a rather poorly articulated policy, but it can not be said to be clearly against policy. Nothing in this close forecloses an immediate proposed merger with a better developed supertopic article (a proposal also made but not further developed in this discussion). BD2412T 05:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Embassy buildings are required to meet WP:NBUILDING which this does not. All buildings "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" - this has none. AusLondonder (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no sourcing that would establish why the building the embassy is housed in is notable. All I turned up were links to the UK embassy itself.TH1980 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inherent notability about embassies. Fails WP:NBUILDING. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed cultural heritage building on the Lithuanian Registry of Cultural Property ([1]), so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. The entry has a link to a description. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania is a small country (65,300 km2, less than 3 million population) with approx 25,000 buildings with heritage listings. I do not believe a reasonable, sensible approach is that all those buildings are inherently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline, however, says that they are! Basically, your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that a building like this would be heritage listed in most countries, however many buildings they listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to get any useful information out of the listing? I looked it over, but it is incredibly sparse on text so I didn't even bother trying to translate it. Articles still need to be verifiable. Something being notable is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an article. Rockphed (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what possible way is this not verifiable? In any case, I have a suspicion you didn't click on the link that gives far more detail about the building ([2]). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Necrothesp. Listed buildings have been clearly been noted by a reliable third-party source. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Respublik (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article about a building or the diplomatic mission? It seems to be the latter, so WP:GEOFEAT and WP:NBUILDING do not apply as this is not an article about a building.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Antakalnio Street 2 and rewrite as a building article? The building was made a cultural heritage building before the embassy moved in. But the embassy itself does not seem notable. Lurking shadow (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's both. Although I have no objection to it being moved to the name of the building (Antakalnio gatve 2). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as building article. Rewrite as building article, if warranted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Atchom (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin should disregard plain votes of which there are now at least two, that say literally nothing more than "keep per Necrothesp". WP:PNSD states ""Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus" AusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If my rationale has already been articulated by another editor, as is the case here, I don't consider it necessary to repeat them in extensio as opposed to adopting them by incorporation. Nothing in the guidelines forbids this. Atchom (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but you do not address the building/diplomatic mission problem that came up. Your comment can be safely disregarded because you do not appear to try to form a consensus. Lurking shadow (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should have been here long enough to know that "keep per X" is perfectly acceptable shorthand for "the other editor has said exactly what I think". It should most certainly not be disregarded by the closer and any attempt to do so would be in breach of the closer's responsibilities. Complaining about it is tantamount to suggesting you're angry that other editors don't agree with you and are trying to get their opinions disregarded for that reason. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that editors will go to get articles deleted once they've decided they don't like them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is supported by 3 sources, 2 of which are not independent and the third does not have any data with which to verify the rest of the article. Some people have suggested that an article about the building itself is viable; I have no problem with people figuring out how to write that article. But this article adds essentially nothing as a base to start that article. Rockphed (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "Presumed to be notable" however we do not currently have independent, reliable sources to back up that presumption. Let's see if another seven days helps that. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 23:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Djflem. I'm not, I was simply relisting and noting a challenge with the existing !votes and what's said in the guideline. It is unclear whether "a" source is sufficient and more input on that front would help the closing admin. StarMississippi 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed to be notable" however we do not currently have independent, reliable sources to back up that presumption. Does nobody read links? We do indeed have an independent, reliable source as to the building's notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have two .uk sources which by their definition are not independent leaving us with this source which is connected with this one you linked above. This is why I relisted, because no don't have sourceS to back up that presumption. StarMississippi 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote once more: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Not, are presumed to be notable if multiple sources can be found. That would be changing an established guideline to make it fit your own beliefs as to what it should say. We clearly have "verifiable information beyond simple statistics". It therefore clearly meets the requirements of the notability guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, presumed to be notable is the same issue we have with the sports guidelines v. GNG. Presumed notable, means presuming coverage that hasn't been found to exist. At the top it says Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable so I don't think I'm adding anything that isn't there, albeit in a different section. It is unclear whether this building meets the GNG. But we agree to disagree as we have in other areas, and I'm happy to leave it there. StarMississippi 17:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, but probably merge to Lithuania–United Kingdom relations until there is more than a brief paragraph's worth of content on the building itself. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete having stayed in the grounds of this building and visited the Embassy itself I would say that there is nothing here that shows the building to be a separately notable place like other British Embassy buildings and the diplomatic content is as boilerplate as the start and end of a note verbal. SpartazHumbug! 19:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established with references such as its inclusion on the Lithuanian Register of Cultural Property. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NBUILDING is not well-written, but my reading of the discussions that lead to it is that cultural heritage or national heritage is meant to be a sufficient condition for an artificial geographic feature to be notable. Some above have argued that they don't like that Lithuania has a large number of buildings on their cultural heritage list, but there's a community consensus (via the NGEO guideline) that these sorts of lists are valuable measures of notability. There's no inherent notability for embassies, of course, but this is moot given inclusion on the cultural heritage list. Since criterion 1 of WP:N explicitly allows for an WP:SNG to be met even when the WP:GNG is not met, and an article still be notable in that case, the arguments that this fails GNG also don't provide a compelling reason to delete. The editor who argued that their overnight stay at the building didn't give them the impression that the building was notable does not seem compelling whatsoever in light of the WP:PAG not caring at all about the vibe the building gives off when one personally visits it. For these reasons, my reading of guidelines is that this building merits an article and should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The register of Cultural property listing actually says nothing interesting about the building. The date of construction is given rather imprecisely - 18th-19th century, and that’s it. Nothing is said about the architectural style, or about any interesting features of the structure, or about the architect. If that’s all we have, it’s not worth keeping the article. Nwhyte (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact of its inclusion on the Register of Cultural Property alone is enough to establish its general notability. Additional detail about architectural style, etc., would be nice but is simply not necessary. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2022 (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.