Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canberra Glassworks


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Canberra Glassworks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ORG. very little third party coverage. current citations are all its own website. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it has several news articles just about it. Also, it is massive:, as it is located in the historic Old Kingston Powerhouse. See . Abductive (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The building is the former Kingston Powerhouse, which is one of the most historic buildings in Canberra; it's really notable in its own right, and there's a tonne of sources about it. In addition, the Glassworks was a fairly major development project and tourist attraction in its own right; I dare say it shouldn't be at all difficult to source, considering the press coverage I recall from when it was under construction. I've tried to get Factiva to load to give some example articles, but it doesn't seem to be working and I have to go out - nonetheless, it shouldn't be hard to source. Rebecca (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantial in-depth coverage is available in independent reliable sources. I added one such to the article and corrected some information that was incorrect according to that reference which points out the need to used reliable sources in the first place.  I am concerned that the building itself is being commingled with the glass studio which could go out of business or move and still leave a notable building in need of an article. Drawn Some (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The glass studio couldn't really move as is - it was created in the first place, as a use for the building, and the building was specially refitted to accomodate it. Rebecca (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is the two are separately notable and should each have their own article. The studio could be disbanded or move and the building would still be there.  They glassblowers could show up one morning and find that the building's location is a smoking hole with remnants of a giant asteroid in it and re-open the studio in an abandoned warehouse on the other side of the river.  It is appropriate for the article on one to mention the other but the topics are worthy of separate articles. Drawn Some (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair call, although I suspect there would be significant crossover in article content. (The reason I suggest this is because much of the content of both articles would be what they did to the building as a result of it becoming the Glassworks.) If you can make an interesting article on the Powerhouse alone though, be my guest. Rebecca (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (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.