Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcestershire Record Office


 * 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  20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Worcestershire Record Office

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No non-trivial secondary sources (currently has the record office's own website, a document not even containing the term "Worcester", and a directory entry), probably non-notable. Prod declined. I'm aware there are several similar articles, such as Cornwall Record Office and Greater Manchester County Record Office, but they don't have secondary sources either and don't demonstrate a general notability of all record offices. Huon (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Added a few references which back up the information, but i think it fails WP:GROUP. S0673253 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability. The JPS talk to me  15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (declaring an interest as a regular user). There is a record office in every English and Welsh county.  The precise arrangements vary from one authority to another (partly for historic reasons).  When I first worked on WP, the use of archival sources was discouraged.  Today, they are sometimes cited, though a secondary source is preferable (if available).  As time goes on, we will probably get more citations of original documents, in which case it will be useful to have an article on the repository.  The present article provides a lot of unnecessary detail, which would be better left to appear on the website (which the record office will keep up to date).  I agree that the provision of independent sources is an issue, but I do not see why the Record Office's own website should not be regarded as WP:RS.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful article, no good reason to delete it. Agree that the WRO website should be regarded as ar WP:RS as they have no reason to publish incorrect info. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enduring public institution. Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - how precisely does it meet WP:NOTE? Huon (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (as I voted above) -- this is like the Record Office of each other county or unitary authority, the respository of archives, mainly for its area. These are not merely the records of the Council that owns it, but also those of a wide variety of proviate individuals who have deposited theri archives there.  This record office is no more or less notable that other ones.  It is the equivalent of a research library, which we would (I am sure) have an article on.  I appreciate that independent sources are scarce, but that is because of the nature of the material.  Some of the documetns held are calendared on access to archives.  There are a directories of archive offices, but they will tend to be compiled from inforation supplied by the office.  These are not commercial enterprises, and thus have little incentive to exaggerate their acheivements.  This there is no reason why the office's own website should not be WP:RS.  Whatever inadequacies there may be are likely to be due to the fact that every record office has a backlog of uncatalogues accessions.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - please do not "vote" twice. The problem is not one of reliability, but of notability. A Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources. If those sources don't exist or offer only trivial information (such as the directory you mention), the topic is deemed non-notable and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you didn't want people to "vote twice" why did you relist the AfD? And incidentally, the thresdhold for inclusion in WP is WP:V, not WP:NOTE. The former is a policy. The latter is merely a guideline. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the AfD was relisted so more people might contribute to the discussion. Of course those who have contributed before may continue to discuss the article's merits, but it is usual to describe that as comment, not as another !vote. Concerning WP:NOTE vs. WP:V: The latter says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources [...]", which this one does not and apparently cannot. And our deletion policy states: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" This article, despite your previous claims, fails both WP:N and WP:ORG, so deletion is reasonable. Huon (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A simple Google search reveals a wealth of citable third party sources on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Prune - The record office may be notable but while the article is written like a vistors guide with just a small history section. If it is kept then most of the content needs to be removed apart from the history section, wikipedia is not a guide. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Okay, I've kept an eye on this discussion for the last few days and thought I would try and save you all some trouble by editing out the parts which people seem to have a problem with (i.e. the parts on visiting the office). I thought it would be useful to have a page for Worcs' record office, given that other counties do and Worcester holds a whole range of vital records. How can one county's record office be deemed notable and another not? I made a real effort to cite sources, even though other record offices don't seem to have bothered putting in any. I can't understand why they haven't had such problems and yet Worcester has. It is very difficult to cite sources for a local government organisation. If the page is still deemed to not be notable enough then by all means delete it, but if that is the case then consider deleting the other record office pages too, please. --Pomegranate23 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2008 (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.