Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Convention Centre

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 Withdrawal by nominee. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Convention Centre

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

Non notable building, wikipedia is not a catalogue or list for every building in the world. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been significant media coverage of the building and of the events that have taken place there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonsensical nomination that just throws up some wiki-cliché and has nothing to do with the reality of this topic or article. Even just by the coverage already linked in the article demonstrates the topic easily passes WP:GNG with very in-depth coverage by secondary sources. If the largest convention center in South Australia is considered just like every other building in the world, this project has got problems. And due to AfDs like this, it does.--Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unquestionable noteability of article nominated to AfD by likely uninformed overseas reader. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced article, period. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very significant building, well covered by reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Australian State capital convention centres could be said to have notability from the amount of effort that the state governments put in by investment and effort to sustain their capacity to achieve iconic status within the CBD's - each state centre has a significant story - even if the adelaide story hasnt been expanded much in this article - there is nothing to prevent an enterprising editor to actually take the trouble to go beyond the current bare bones of the article, a dig around trove might help Satu Suro 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty notable to me. Can't see why it ended up on AFD. Calistemon (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep signficant and notable building. Since initial AfD nomination the article has been referenced. Dan arndt (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major and well-known building in the city of Adelaide. I've got no doubt that the Adelaide Advertiser newspaper and other local media will have covered its construction and history in detail. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous nomination. Close already please. No, it's not the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty, but it's still notable. --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article obviously needs to be expanded, but what we have so far is attributed to reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. Nightw 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article that just needs some work done on it (expanding, copy editing, ect). Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal comment - When I nominated the article it was not vandalized or emptied, I made a superficial research through google and I only found closely tied or unreliable references, then I thought it be nominated because I thought it was non notable, which is not the case, its nomination was a good thing for both, the article and me, article got proper attention and I learned from this mistake. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:44, 9 August 2011 (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.