Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod (no reason gievn). Prod reasoning was "Appears to show no notabality and good faith searches found nothing that would give it notabality" Dpmuk (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1. The subject has been covered by reliable sources. 2. There is precedent in that consulates are kept in AFD. See Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep. OK, say the precedent has already been set, as per WhisperToMe, but this article contains nothing that demonstrates the subject's importance wrt WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since then I have added more content to the article to establish notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Keep the fact that the article needs work and that we have other articles on consulates is unimportant to this discussion, but after looking around on Google I did not find enough information to justify a separate article. —  Jake   Wartenberg  23:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just found information about a Hurricane Katrina controversy involving this consulate. Jake, keep in mind that you may have to use multiple search queries and special parameters, such as '"British consulate" Houston' etc. to find what you want. It is likely that you used one search term to look for everything. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found even more information regarding this consulate. Keep in mind that newspapers and business journals often announce when consulates close. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cheers, —  Jake   Wartenberg  16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or a directory. Fails WP:N. I dispute the claim that consulates have inherent notability. Edison (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this a directory, Edison? How does it fail WP:N? Why? The consulate was involved in a dispute regarding UK citizens and Hurricane Katrina. It doesn't just exist; it is involved in diplomatic issues regarding the region of the host country (in this case Louisiana) and the mother country (the UK), and it was documented in reliable sources. Also, why dispute this when the AFD precedent went the other way? Precedent is important in AFD (yes, I am aware about "Otherstuffexists," but when an AFD is decided one way, it can set a precedent) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still failing to see anything here that establishes notabality. Yes there's plenty of reliable sources that mention the Consulate-General but in my mind none of them meet WP:N.  Specifically:
 * "Houston" UK in the USA - Official government site so not independent of the subject.
 * "THE BRITISH ARE COMING English companies operating in city nearly double in four years." The Dallas Morning News. From what I can see of the article the Consulate in only being cited as a source of information and that's trivial coverage as the article's not actually about the consulate.
 * "Leasing briefs." Houston Chronicle - Only trivial coverage.
 * "Dallas' British Consulate to close in money-saving move." Dallas Business Journal. - Trivial covergae, only mentions that Houston is next nearest Consulate
 * "Katrina: Are you a survivor?." BBC - User contributed content so reliability concerns. Besides only one definite and one possible passing mentioning of the Consulate so only trivial coverage.
 * "Foreign Office tells 100,000 Britons to flee as Rita nears." The Scotsman. Slightly more coverage but still trivial in my opinion as the article is just relaying advice from the Consulate.  The article is in no way about the consulate.
 * "Blair defends UK Katrina response." BBC - OK so the consule general gets a lot of mentions in this article but a) the article is not about the consulate general so it's still trivial coverage and b) she's mainly commenting on the governments resposne so to me this in no way establishes notabality of the group giving that response - otherwise various press offices and the like would be notable. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG, limited third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WtM is correct in alluding to precedent. Further to that, many, many consualtes have their own articles- take Consualte General of France in Atlanta for example. They seem to be being treated rather like an extension to the rule on embassies- which are almost always notable. In light of the improvements, this article meets WP:GNG, though I would like to see more non-Katrina related material. HJMitchell    You rang?  10:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dpmuk's analysis of the sources. Trivial coverage doesn't meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dpmuk. It would seem far better to summarize these in a list, perhaps by country. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (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.