Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archives in Canada

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. Sandstein 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of archives in Canada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List pages are supposed to show the same notability requirements as an article. This page has a mere 60 good links in a sea of red links (625 lines in total) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer If the consensus is to delete, please could it moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada to be an editor resource rather than an article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If the consensus for that page is not to include archives that do not merit articles, then remove those nonnotable entries. Problem solved. 60 articles is more than enough to justify a standalone list, as an index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as a complement to Category:Archives in Canada per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only is 60 articles enough to merit a list, just because there is no article does not mean the archives are not notable. I cannot ascertain to the notability of the archives, but many lists have large amounts of redlinks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the entire article needs to be cleaned up, the whole Website column needs to be removed WP:NOTLINKFARM and removal of all the red-linked entries. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in NOTLINKFARM that prohibits the website column. We'd have a problem if the list was nothing but those websites, or if the general article on archive had an external inks section with 60 entries... Here it's up to editor consensus on that list as to whether it's appropriate. Same thing with the redlinks, there is no prohibition against having them in lists. postdlf (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The list contains valid, notable blue-links, and has a clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per those above. What the list needs is a clear inclusion criteria to allow for cleanup. At a glance, it doesn't seem correct to say that 60 links=60 relevant articles. Some link to related articles that aren't about archives. Regardless, there are certainly enough for a list and the criteria can be developed outside of AfD. I also tend to agree it should not have an external links column, but again, don't think that's something that needs to be argued in AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This was created in 2014 as a valid split out from world-wide List of archives. Archives are things which sometimes have wikipedia articles, and list-articles can cover black-link (no article intended) and red-link items in addition to blue-link items. Please see wp:CLT about the complementarity of having list-articles, categories, and navigation templates covering sets like here, in different ways. --Doncram (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I got here via an unrelated OTRS ticket, but just as a note I've removed the elinks from the article. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the on the equivalent page Archiverdict wiki (sign in and change to Monobook view if a WP like layout is preferred). I am correcting the websites as I go along.

This list needs to be put into alphabetical order, and possibly some entries on the list amalgamated - the various 'Anglican Church Diocese archives' being a particular example (with the actual page having the various dioceses as subheadings etc).

Some of the entries could probably be deleted for a variety of reasons. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But remove all red links. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 60 blue links is more than enough to justify a list. Certainly some of the redlinks can and should be pruned, and list policy does allow us to impose a restriction that the article must already exist before a new entry can be added if a list is too prone to collecting "directory" entries for non-notables (see e.g. List of bands from Canada, where such a restriction has been applied so that the list doesn't collect every high school band in North Battleford SK that have never played a single show outside the guitarist's dad's garage) — but some of them may indeed also be notable enough for articles that just don't actually exist yet, so pruning would have to be done with some caution. But if there are enough bluelinks to justify a list, which there are, then any discussion about whether we should strip the redlinks or not is a content matter which should be addressed through discussion on the talk page, not an AFD issue. `Bearcat (talk)

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.