Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 14:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Southampton Archives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Only one source, which is primary, is used throughout the whole article. Also, there is little to no content. A merger is also a possibility, but I don’t think the article deserves its own standalone in its current form. Fats40boy11 (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Since adding a deletion tag to Southampton Archives this morning, there has been a flurry of activity improving and expanding the article. It looks like it is now a work in progress, and I’ll consider withdrawing my AFD when I check the article again in a few hours. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as from a glance it looks like sourcing exists to get it over WP:ORG hump. At worst, merge to the town where it merits a line about the long history. Star Mississippi 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator – Withdraw I would like to withdraw the AFD. Upon discussion on their talk page, the page creator is looking around to see what they can find, and has added more information again today with some more sources. I think it would be unjust to delete the page after being given this guarantee, and that we should review the article in future months after all this information has been found and added. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2022 (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.