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 Speedy keep by means of consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago

[edit]

Fails WP:ORG by all information that was available to me. The very extensive article cites only one source (which I don't have access to unfortunately), and it is not clear whether this one is independent. The most detailed account I found on the Web is this, which is not quite enough for an encyclopedia article. (It's more or less a summary of their catalogue.) Expert review request to WikiProject Caribbean turned up nothing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a country's national archives and a major government agency - surely this is notable! Government agencies are almost always considered inherently notable, which I guess is why they are not mentioned in WP:ORG. The United Nations agency UNESCO considers the Eric Williams and Derek Walcott Collections at NAT&T to be of worldwide significance.[1]. The article is under referenced I agree, cut out the unreferenced parts, but I don't agree it needs deletion, and a lack of response from the Caribbean WikiProject is not a good reason for deletion. --Canley 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Government organizations, just as any other organizations, would need independent sources to be considered notable. I think that should apply in particular if they're as large as 20-30 employees. Within the last half a year, nobody has found such sources. The collections you name are with the University of the West Indies, not with the National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago, for all I read from the linked texts? --B. Wolterding 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, the links on that page are broken. You're right about the Walcott Collection, but the Eric Williams Collection is partly held at the National Archives.[2] While the existing reference (written by a staff member of the archives) might not be considered independent according to the letter of the essay WP:INDY, I doubt that is the spirit of the essay's intention (use of promotional homepages as references). I believe this subject is inherently notable, and that the article history should at least be retained so that future verification of the information is possible. --Canley 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a nation's national archives not be notable? Nick mallory 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. I find it impossible to believe that Wikipedia would delete an article about the most central repository of primary documents for an entire nation. That said, a few more references (preferably line-item citations) are certainly called for. Only one reference is extremely poor form. -Markeer 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a country's national archives are by default notable. Corvus cornix 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, national government entities are presumably notable. For smaller nations and non-English speaking nations we should also consider that online sources will be necessarily slim; see WP:CSB. Given time such articles are sourceable, because the country (and its institutions) aren't going anywhere. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. --Targeman 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.