Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customs House Port Adelaide


 * 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 delete with no prejudice against creating an article at this title about the 1880 building. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Customs House Port Adelaide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable building that is miles away from meeting the general notability guideline. Seemingly created by the property's owner. SmartSE (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I agree that the 1987 building that is the focus of the article (as presently written) is not particularly notable, and that it does appear that it's been written by someone with a very close connection with the subject. However, there is another "Customs House Port Adelaide" which is much more notable as it was built in 1880, in a prime location adjacent to the historic precinct and the waterfront, and is nationally-heritage listed. As it's been left empty for many years and neglected by the owner, this is a source of concern to the local community (see: Masonry work starts at Port Adelaide’s Customs House on Commercial Road). IMHO the article title needs to be kept, and the whole article completely rewritten with a major focus on the 1880 building, as well as mentioning earlier buildings with the same name (going back to 1840) which have not survived. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The article about the current building is non-notable. No objection to creating one about the 1880 building though. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I noticed this, assumed it was talking about the 1880 building, and was wondering why the heck anyone would try to delete it. Once I read the detail, I was wondering why anyone would create this one. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - fails WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, but with no prejudice against the creation of another article on the 1880 building. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:49, 6 March 2016 (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.