Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashgrovian

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, and discuss possible merging on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashgrovian

Dictionary article (and the etymology) that should belong in WikiDictionary. Diez2 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. It stands for improvement, as far as noting what constitutes Ashgrovian. --Dennisthe2 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a unique style with regional notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm no architect, but if this is a distinct style of building with definable qualities (as it seems to be at the moment), then it seems notable enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum, I've never done the image-uploading thing before, but if it will help move this beyond the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument, I've got a good enough idea (courtesy of Google and a whole series of photos I don't want to try to get copyright details of) of what this looks like to find an example and upload a photo thereof. It's the sort of thing this article will need anyway, so it can only help in the long run. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Fred McGarry 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - May be more appropriate to merge as a section highlight on the vernacular architecture and/or Ashgrove, Queensland articles. I've placed a note on the apparent creator's talk page giving him/her a heads up that this is up for discussion. --Keesiewonder 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with either Architecture of Australia or Australian architectural styles or most likely, Australian residential architectural styles. Notablility established Here. This is clearly a recognised 'style' in Australia. The article in its current form is very stubby though and a merge with either of the above articles seems appropriate. The 'dictionary article' rationale doesn't really bear close scrutiny, the article is much more than a definition. Popularity is discussed, the relationships of the parts are examined and we are told how the buildings were adapted, that's encyclopedic in my book (if too stubby for an article on it's own). If it's significantly expanded in the next seven days (more than just adding a photo though) then I'm a keep. If the decision is keep then the article needs renaming to Ashgrovian style. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep given references as it seems to be an architectural style of some significance. Possibly rename as per McGinley. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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.