Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Boston Archives


 * 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. The consensus is that the references that have been added to the article during the course of this discussion are sufficient to allow the article to stay. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

City of Boston Archives

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nothing suggests that this municipal government department is notable. Article was previous fluffy; now, contains one source (primary) and nothing to indicate notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that is it notable due to a lack of knowledge about it in the general Boston populace, due to the fact that historically Boston's records have been held by individual departments and only recently have they been moved to the archives; this is also of interest to other archivists and genealogists. I can change the page to reflect this. User: zyarchive —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

Upon further review, I agree that it does lack the notability element, as there are no high profile articles about the archives, despite the role they played recently in the email scandal in Boston's city government. I had modeled the page after the pageNew York City Municipal Archives page to serve simply as an additional resource for users looking for information or for those coming from the Boston page or the West Roxbury page. If it must be deleted, it is understandable. User: zyarchive 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You could speed the process up by blanking the page, making it available for g7 speedy deletion. OR, you could watch the process unfold here and learn someone from it.  Your choice. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk  15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes in an effort to better reflect the importance of the archives. I would rather not blank the page, as I think it is an important resource of knowledge and deserves a spot on Wikipedia. User:zyarchive 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Personal belief that the subject is important is not a legitimate ground for retention, and WP:NOT explicitly bars a wish to publicize a subject as the reason to keep an article. What part of WP:V, WP:N or WP:ORG does this fulfill, and where are there independent sources substantively about the subject, as WP:RS requires?   Ravenswing  19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Added articles from Boston Globe on significance of archives/moving archives to West Roxbury. Also added email from City Councilor on importance of archives. Unfortunately I was not logged in at the time, but the changes are in the process of being done.  Still learning Wikipedia; it is a somewhat overwhelming process.  Zyarchive (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)zyarchive


 * Keep Added references appear to satisfy WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the additional references satisfy notability. -- Clifflandis (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The two articles in the Globe do a lot for me, and the potential for the article to explore the contents of Boston's archives is great-- there ought to be material here not only of interest for city politics but also as part of Wikipedia's treatment of Boston's history.Avram (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2010 (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.