Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galveston Bay Area

:{{la|Galveston Bay Area}} ([{{fullurl:Galveston Bay Area|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galveston Bay Area}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Galveston Bay Area}})

While phrase "Galveston Bay Area" exists, it has no boundaries, nor is it on any Texas template. There is already a Galveston Bay, Greater Houston, Southeast Texas, etc.. Does info repeated in each of these articles require repeating again because of a vague geographical phrase? The city of Galveston is included, unnamed, in Greater Houston. This article appears to be "compensation" for not having a named MSA! Student7 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I believe this is a pretty common phrase used for this area, not just madeup. It cites quite a few reliable sources that used either "Galveston Bay Area" or "Bay Area Houston". I believe it has just as much significance as the San Francisco Bay Area. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• KeepIt is referred to by reliable sources, and just because it's vague does not mean that "Galveston Bay Area" is not a notable phenomenon or designation. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - With respect to Student7 I am not sure I understand the justifications provided. I would request a clarification. The Galveston Bay article discusses the Bay, not the metro area. Greater Houston obviously encompasses this area, but then Greater Houston is encompassed by Texas, Southern United States, United States, North America, and Earth. Should we remove Greater Houston? And, of course, we could go on. It seems to me that the only valid question is whether this geographical region is noteworthy in its own right (i.e. is it recognized by authoritative sources as a distinct region). I do agree that it is valid to ask where we draw the line on notability but, unless you are going to propose deleting a lot of other existing articles, I don't see how this one falls low enough on the notability scale to merit deletion (if that is what you are really getting at). --Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - the article covers a unique and notable area that is within Greater Houston. It really has nothing to do with the Houston MSA (or the lack of). When a visitor asks a Houstonian "Where do the astronauts live?", we tell them southeast of the city in the Galveston Bay area, usually off "Bay Area Blvd." [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/areamap.pdf] Postoak (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve - Article contains some unique relevant information, that is properly sourced in third party RS. However an effort should be made to improve the focus of the article and avoid extensive duplication of information already covered and/or presented in Greater Houston. As it stands right now, a Merge tag might be more appropriate than a AFD tag. --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

:* Naum75, thanks. Can you elaborate more on Improve and merge in the talk page? --Mcorazao (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Remember, everything that goes into Houston (and allied places), has to be placed or considered for Greater Houston, considered for Southeast Texas, and now, for Galveston Bay. You really need to be considering a limit to maintenance here. You are all enthused to do this but what happens when the current set of editors move on? Which articles get abandoned and out of date? Normally, the MSAs, at the first level don't do well at all and are normally out of date (Greater Houston). Developing three higher level articles, all requiring maintenance does not seem too smart to me. You need to be thinking about an upper limit here. Can you draw the line before "East Texas"? How about "Gulf of Mexico Area"? (Hopefully there isn't one now! :{ Student7 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

::Reply The problem is no one uses the term "Gulf of Mexico Area". The area surrounding the Gulf of Mexico is composed of two countries, many states, and many cultures. There is nothing useful about linking the entire area together for a description. The Galveston Bay Area however is useful. It is used by many in the area to describe the place in which they live. If, years in the future, the area undergoes substantial change and it is no longer grouped together as a "region" by mainstream sources, those editors in the future may decide that it is no longer useful, and delete it. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

::Reply I do agree that maintenance is an issue as well as the larger question of where does Wikipedia draw the line for notability. I personally believe Wikipedia should establish a clearer policy on where that line is drawn. Nevertheless, this topic is much more notable than the examples you are giving and, regardless, is more notable than many other well-accepted topics in Wikipedia. For my part I have deliberately tried to ensure that most of the content is not information that is subject to rapid change so that, even if it is not well-maintained, it will still be relevant for the forseeable future. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:::And I think you mean GBA is "lower level", right? East Texas encompasses Greater Houston which encompasses Galveston Bay Area.

:::BTW, to address the "upper limit" question, part of the reason the article discusses the geographic boundaries in such a loose way is to address that issue, or at least part of it. That is, we could create separate articles for the BAHEP's definition of the Bay Area (Pasdena to League City), the JSC-centered definition of the Bay Area (Clear Lake to League City), the southwest bay definition (Pasadena to Texas City), etc., etc. To me that would be silly. There is not enough notability in those little distinctions to merit separate articles. So I deliberately incorporated these varying definitions into one article. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So, can this be shut down? I understand that there are still some concerns about the article but can we agree that there is no consensus for deletion?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.