Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consular Agency of the United States, Bremen

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 keep. In view of the comments, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consular Agency of the United States, Bremen

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

Not an embassy or consulate general, just consular branch.No 3rd party sources WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I don't see why "just consular branch" can be a reason for deletion, and I don't see when this article looks like something in the directory, either. As for "No 3rd party sources", I don't even know why it shows here. Howard61313 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination was a kick-in-the-pants to improve the article, and that has occurred. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this article exists here on German Wikipedia, where it received 418 views in the past 90 days. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

number of page views is irrelevant to notability. WP:POPULARPAGE. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the earliest consulates opened by the United States and longest-open diplomatic missions the US operated (1794-1941, 1945?-1986, 2000-present). While the article is just a stub, that does not preclude maintaining an article for it (it may be improved in the future). AHeneen (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has been expanded with additional sources and details. As a quick suggestion, Smith (1950) contains some more information about the post-World War II situation in Bremen, that could be added. But the topic is clearly notable enough for a keep as is. GermanJoe (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As my opinion above. Howard61313 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the added sources, and arguments put forth by AHeneen and GermanJoe.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (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.