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. John254 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are not judging architecture here! In two years this building will have housed a national guard for 100 years. Non notable?. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. National Guard of Massachusetts is indeed notable, but that does not make notable the building that has been hosting various units thereof. At best, this should be merged into the article on the National Guard, but I think that the building itself, without reference to the guard, is not important enough to have its own article. --Gimlei(talk to me) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Massachusetts National Guard article per Gimlei.--Nat Miller (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gimlei. If there's nothing much to say about it other than its relationship to the Massachusetts National Guard then it should probably just be briefly discussed in that article. ~ mazcatalk 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You will find stories about all armories of this age at your local library, or from the local historical society(especially for the Yankee Division) and this would more then surpass the criteria for notability for buildings. Just because google doesn't go back that far doesn't mean we should merge and redirect. This is where troops left for World War I, World War II, etc. There is no legitimate reason to add it to the main Mass Nat'l Guard article, plus I believe this article is facing BRAC and will soon end up as a museum. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Taking a second look, I see that the article is referenced by a book about the armory, which would make it automatically notable. Thus, a deletion and merge cannot be supported. MrPrada (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a merge can be supported. The building itself may indeed be notable (I never disputed that), but the extremely limited information available about it, combined with the current sparsity of the Massachusetts National Guard article, leads me to the opinion that they'd be better off combined, with a redirect. I agree that a delete is not justified, yes, but a merge seems perfectly reasonable - without prejudice to a split in future if it's warranted. ~ mazcatalk 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barring the outcome of the AFD, a merge could be discussed on the article's talk page. However deleting the article and its history for the purposes of a merge would not be constructive. MrPrada (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope nobody's suggesting deleting then merging, because that isn't possible under the GFDL. I would take "merge" votes to mean "merge and redirect", which keeps the history intact. ~ mazcatalk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrPrada. The book source does warrant this inclusion per WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the book.and the other likely sourcing. DGG (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrPrada. I also support keeping it because it is unique and important to the Hudson area. There are many articles out there on armories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2008 (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.