Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of India, 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. Sandstein 10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of India, Houston

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. The claim of being a top 10 mission by a newspaper is pure POV. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Consulate is getting coverage both in the U.S. and in India and it is still relatively new. I found enough references to assure it's notable, and I think it should be kept with a "Please help" banner. VanEman (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is run of the mill like confirmed it opened. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are reliable and consistent and are enough to show notability. The so-called POV statement is reliably sourced. I found the short article interesting, adequately sourced, and well constructed. There was no good reason to nominate this. Prhartcom (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. The good reason to keep it is the lack of in depth coverage. 2 sources merely confirm opening, another source is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 25 April 2016 (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.