Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flinders Wharf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flinders Wharf
Delete Notability not established despite google presence. TonyTheTiger 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand This complex appears to have been the subject of at least 2 non-trivial published works (in The Age newspaper) due to its development controversy. [1] [2]. This history should be included in the article. --Oakshade 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
'Delete' - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Putting the above links in the article in appropriate manner will re-frame the discussion. If an article doesn't meet standards change it rather than saying it should be kept because it can be changed. Shaundakulbara 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)- Keep - References provided. They need to be Wikified but that can come later. Remember, Wikipedia is about showing how something is notable and how. What is said here is dwarved by whatever is shown in the article. Shaundakulbara 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a correct way to decide if a subject is notable or not. WP:CORP states the criteria of notability and this passes that criteria due to it being, as WP:CORP states, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Deleting an article simply because the formality of inserting those published works in the article hasn't happened is a misunderstanding of notability criteria and discounting the extremely valuable discussion in an AfD. --Oakshade 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - References provided. They need to be Wikified but that can come later. Remember, Wikipedia is about showing how something is notable and how. What is said here is dwarved by whatever is shown in the article. Shaundakulbara 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I've now included references to the above newspaper articles, along with another article, and reference to a Victorian State Government article. I've framed the article inclusions in terms of controversy about the site and local area. I believe this should stay as it of relevance to Melbourne, Australia, the growing area and importance of the Docklands, the redevelopment of both Flinders Street and Spencer Street, and the new convention centre area being developed. It is also supported by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. Thank you to Oakshade for your valuable support and encouragement here. Curmi 13:11, 25 January 2007 (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.
