Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston

fails WP:CORP. also WP:NOTDIR applies here. should be mentioned in 1 line in Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. Not much worth keeping.--Unionhawk ^Talk 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth keeping. JBsupreme (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is a reference from the Houston Chronicle that has not been expanded upon and could include encyclopedic information. Furthermore, there appears to be no mention of the Houston office at the main entry for Taipei Economic and Cultural Office except a link to this page. If this page is removed, the basic details ought to be merged in there rather than deleted altogether. WP:PAPER -moritheil^Talk 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article name is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article name is a likely search term because that is the name of the diplomatic mission. Therefore a redirect decision could be appropriate, while a delete with no redirect cannot be an appropriate decision. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORP clearly states that the subject should be covered outside of the local area, and this is not the case here. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I revisited the article after WhisperToMe's comment, but the sources listed appear only to establish that this place physically exists. That is not in doubt, but WP is not a directory, and the article still fails WP:CORP. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The sources aren't saying that it exists. They are saying that it has an economic role in trade relations between the southeastern US and the ROC. When the TECO Houston individuals met with the Louisiana officials it was to negotiate trade between Louisiana and the ROC. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a source about Louisiana officials meeting with TECO-Houston officials in 2005. Please re-evaluate the notability based on what I am adding. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find this diffilct to judge becasue List of diplomatic missions of the Republic of China is a list of cities with missions, not a list of articles on missions. Since PRC took over the China seat at UN, the Republic of China has been unable to have formal diplomatic relations with many countries. Instead it has converted its missions to Economic and Cultural offices, which fulfil the role of consulates (amongst other things). This is the way that ROC has foreign relations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. The subject has been covered by reliable sources that show its significance. 2. This is a de facto consulate of the ROC. It may be under another name, but there is precedent in that consulates are kept in AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not count as a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXIST indeed counts as a reason when there is a precedent established by AFD. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#General_avoidance_principle, an essay, explains this clearly: "However, a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." The thing is that there are times when "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" can be made to make a valid argument. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you use as an example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston, you will note in that discussion one main reason for keeping those articles (including the Russian consulate) was that Indonesia and Russia were large oil producing countries. thus you cannot directly compare this consulate with those ones. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion, that particular reason was mentioned by Oakshade. The others mostly cited the coverage by reliable sources for notability and verifiability. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 11 May 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.