Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angolan Consulate General, 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. The consensus is clear enough: that the sources presented do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angolan Consulate General, Houston

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

This article does not meet the GNG - there is not significant independent coverage of this topic in third-party, reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, 4 are the embassy itself (not third-party), 1 is a map that verifies the consulate exists, and one, a NYT article, it focused on the city of Houston and links with Africa in general, with only a few sentences that mention this consulate. That is trivial coverage at best. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/business/energy-of-africa-draws-the-eyes-of-houston.html
Has the following sentences:
"When Angola recently opened its only consulate outside New York, few people here were surprised that Houston was chosen."
"The interest of energy companies in West Africa is encouraging ventures in a variety of fields. EDI Architecture, like dozens of other companies here, is betting its future on strengthening ties to Africa. It designed the Angolan consulate here, a luxurious corporate suite discreetly decorated with the burgundy and gold colors of the nation's flag."
"EDI Architecture was among the more experienced participants, having already built American-style residential compounds in Angola for Exxon Mobil and Angola's national petroleum company. It is currently building a 20-story office tower in Luanda."
I believe that demonstrates significant coverage. The article shows the consulate opening as part of an ongoing trend in Houston's international relations.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last bullet isn't even referencing the consulate. In that one four-page article, there is a sentence that verifies that Angola put a consulate in Houston, and one saying that EDI Architectchure designed the offices and what they look like. The article is ABOUT the "ongoing trend in Houston's international relations"; the consulate is simply one example used. I classify that is trivial. I also couldn't find any other independent reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the example used by Wikipedia:Notability#Notes:

"The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1992/jan/06/usa.martinwalker

Let's look at the significance of the "jazz band" thing on the article itself. The article doesn't mention the jazz band as being a significant turning point or being a significant effect on Bill Clinton's life.

While in the article, the Angolan consulate is seen as a significant escalation of Houston's diplomatic relations with Angola and other African countries.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you completely - it's listed as an example, not a "significant escalation", as you put it. Some of the other examples given got paragraphs more coverage and a lot more text on their importances. If you want to nitpick, the guideline also says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." The depth of coverage here is tiny and I haven't seen any other coverage in independent reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. The Angola Press says:

"Angolan Consulate Highlights Country's Challenges for Development." Angola Press. 7 November 2006.

"All Africa" is a website that houses news content from many sub-saharan African publications.

The Angola press site is at: http://www.portalangop.co.ao/motix/pt_pt/portal/capa/index.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide access to that article? I can't see the full text, and the synopsis makes it sound like the article is discussing a speech an official at the consulate gave about Angola, not the consulate. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me post a Wikipedia:Resource request for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Resource_request#Angola_consulate_of_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WhispertoMe, for finding full access to that so quickly. I read the article, and it says nothing about the consulate - it's a brief description of a speech about the Angolan economy. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - I'll see if I can find another source in English and... if that doesn't work, in Portuguese... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of User:WhisperToMe. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also per comments of Whispertome. Although I admit that coverage online may be limited I believe that there are sources available that can be used for this topic. I don't agree it fails GNG.--Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"believing" that there are sources available is very different from sources actually existing. Where do you think these hidden sources may be? Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is nothing more than an address and listing of services, therefore fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A physical description of this office and the address are better placed in the Angolan Embassy's website. These kinds of trivial, non-notable topics do not merit an encyclopedia article. Unless of course some historic event with historic significance occurred in this address, then I'll vote keep. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information now present in the article is of no particular consequence or interest, and I see no indication how the subject could be notable. Sandstein 21:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because useful to readers and inherently notable per WP:ORG and WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consulates are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My experience is that consulates are rarely independently notable. List of diplomatic missions of Angola is likely to be appropriate but this is not. And the lack of independent, reliable sources in the article convinces me that this mission is not an exception to this general rule. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly isn't independently notable with no reliable sourcing discussing the actual consulate and there is no inherent notability for consulates. The keep side have relied on assertions and unsubstantiated claims of sourcing that do not count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above --Neutrality^talk 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete there is nothing to suggest notability, including sources discussed in this AfD. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2011 (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.