Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archives Wales


 * 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. North America1000 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Archives Wales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Arb with the following rationale "You may be right but it deserves at least an AfD. Also, did you google "Archives Wales" with the quotes; plenty of hits". Well, I cannot find any hits which make it pass the above notability reqs, or Notability (websites). It exists, it is linked to, but where is the in-depth coverage by independent sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are extensive links from eliable sources and some media coverage under its previous branding Archives Network wales. Martinlc (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. Are Archives Wales and Archives Network Wales functionally related? If so, there seems to be enough coverage to support notability.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: yes they are related - Archives Network Wales was rebranded as Archives Wales.  There are references to ANW in the technical section of the website []Martinlc (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Just a website. No notability. If it held archives itself then it would have notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - seems to meet GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 07:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. You need to explain how it seems to meet this policy. Because I did explain how it does not meet it, and your vote it therefore a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Arxiloxos's sources from the BBC, the Western Mail, and the Liverpool Daily Post each provide nontrivial coverage of Archives Wales (which was formerly called Archives Network Wales). There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Archives Wales to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2015 (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.