Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Bay, Boston, Massachusetts

South Bay, Boston, Massachusetts was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

While not nonsense, the current article gives me no idea what is South Bay Boston. Apparently it is part of the Big Dig which has an extensive article. As this is now this in non notable. Just links to the big dig. Sortior 17:33, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Well, "South Bay" +Boston is the subject of 257k hits, so it's a legitimate community as a subject. Merge links into Big Dig, figure out whether South Bay, Boston (like Back Bay, Boston, South Bay, Los Angeles) or South Bay, Boston, Massachusetts (like Beacon Hill, Boston, Massachusetts) would be the appropriate title, move/redirect as necessary, and link to it from Big Dig, Boston and South Bay so we at least have a canonical title established. Samaritan 19:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone is bold enough to merge brief descriptions of neighborhoods into the Boston article. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and hope that someone writes a decent article on the community in the future. There's nothing in here worth saving. (Even the URLs are out of date.) I take it back. *Keep* Darkcore's updated article. P Ingerson 20:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I tried to save it. I think it's a relatively decent stub now. Darkcore 21:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a genuine place in a fairly large city. The article just needs to be expanded. Gsd97jks 23:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this great stub on the great Bay State. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Now that I know what South Bay is, and there is an article that makes sense...it is worth keeping. Sortior 23:28, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, nice work on the rescue Darkcore. --fvw* 23:36, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite from scratch. Perhaps put it as a candidate for Collaboration of the Week? It's a pretty significant area with a long (for the US) history and activity throughout the history. However, the current contents are not helpful. It needs the careful attention of helping hands. Geogre 02:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I tried to save it based on information that I could obtain. Sorry you didn't like it. Darkcore 05:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I looked at the nominated version. I do like your rewrite. I still think it should be a COW, though, as the amount of stuff there is to say, the number of links there could be, etc. Geogre 12:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks to Darkcore—Trevor Caira 02:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and congrats to Darkcore for a job well done. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: The current article does a good job of describing the present and future of the area. Something about its history would be useful. DCEdwards1966 06:33, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep all real places. Been there, that makes it real enough to me. Alkivar 21:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Seems like more deletion trolling. Keep. Mark Richards 16:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.