Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Switzerland 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 merge to Switzerland – United States relations and Pakistan – United States relations. First of all, whether the articles are interesting or not has no bearing on their notability. That said, it comes down to whether the sources establish notability. Any diplomatic missions should be mentioned in the bilateral relations article, not here. And any notable event that occured should have its own stand-alone article, but does not automatically confer notability upon the building. However, the articles do have content with sources that are useful (albeit impertinent to the Consulate-General itself, save the primary source), so a merge would be the ideal solution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston[edit]

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

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

Deletion Review was closed as Overturn to AfD. Link to discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_9#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston_and_Consulate-General_of_Pakistan_in_Houston_.28closed.29 (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial information. I can not imagine why a person would want to write an article on this when there are so many other more interesting things in the world. Borock (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial information. I can not imagine why a person would want to read an article on this when there are so many other more interesting things in the world. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diplomatic missions between important nations are notable, and the articles are cited with verifiable sources. It's trivial, sure, but then so is an egg slicer, and I just removed the PROD from that one the other day. Also, I've seen so many articles about species of slugs and moths and villages in India while patrolling new pages that I actually thought this was a pretty refreshing read. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the article. All it says is the consulate of Switzerland rented an office in Houston, then moved to another one, then closed down. I think an article on an Indian village or a species of slug is about 1000 times or more more important than that, and probably more interesting as well. Borock (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that I am an American partly of Swiss ancestry and am very pleased that our two nations have good relations. I would love to read an article on Swiss-American relations over the years, but I don't care about what office addresses their consulate in Houston rented. The information is not even useful since they are now closed down. Borock (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borock, on Wikipedia notability is forever. Whether something exists now or no longer exists, either way it was there. Just because a person is dead doesn't mean he or she is less notable than an equivalent person who was alive. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Pantherskin (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When did "I can not imagine why a person would want to read..." become a good argument to delete something? Both of these are reliably sourced, though I wouldn't mind seeing an article along the lines of Diplomatic Missions of Pakistan in the United States, and the same for Switzerland, instead of stand-alone articles on each consulate the respective nations have. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Pakistan) - I found a lengthy secondary source describing how an employee of the consulate was accused of issuing fake passports, so this topic should have sufficient secondary coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be on the crime itself (if that's notable), not the office were it took place.Borock (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced. Snarky concerns of what others want to write or read does not justify deletion. Postoak (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles satisfy WP:RS, Switzerland article could be expanded more, however. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a joke? Borock (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, recommend merge each appears to meet WP:N (if just barely) and no good reason not to keep this. But each are short and would likely be better organized by grouping them (maybe consulates of Switzerland in the USA?). But that's an editorial call, not a deletion issue. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Switzerland article does not meet WP:N. There is no indication that his topic has merited significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The one independent reference listed only verifies that the consulate existed, and provides no other information. This should not have its own article. The Pakistan article has more idependent sources, but these still provide only trivial coverage, essentially verifying that the consulate exists but not providing any significant coverage of the consulate itself. Therefore it also fails WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue is whether this particular consulate-general is notable enough for its own article. It isn't about whether the article cites to reliable sources. It isn't about whether it's well-written. It isn't about whether the nominator said something "snarky". Mention it in the article called Switzerland – United States relations where it would be relevant. From what I see, it sources to its own website and an article in the Houston newspaper. There's no indication that this was ever notable anywhere else. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the other one, no indication of notability for Pakistan's mission office in Houston. Mention that one in Pakistan – United States relations absent some showing of importance elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (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.