Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Eira Town Hall


 * 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. Nice find by Necrothesp, the Victoria Heritage Register will do it. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Glen Eira Town Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be just another town hall, failing international notability requirements. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  08:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - A town hall of a city of over 135,000 population and that's over 125 years old does seem like a notable topic. I don't have access to the references cited, but I will assume good faith that the editors who have worked on this article over the years provided these sources found them significant.--Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Big  Dom  20:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like an historic enough building for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete length of existence and potential population served is not relevant. it needs significant third party coverage which is sorely lacking. . LibStar (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable or recognized at this time. Could be recreated if it gets historic designation from a major authority, but for now it's just a very old building. Google Books finds only two mentions, both in books about town halls in Melbourne - that's pretty minimal. Search for Caulfield Town Hall, its original name, isn't much better. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 *  Weak Keep. It's a landmark building. It's one of a portfolio of landmark town hall buildings that are listed at the bottom of the article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The list at the bottom does not say they are "landmarks" - it seems to simply list every town hall in the Melbourne area. From a quick glance I would say a number of them are candidates for deletion also. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Question does this building have any "listed" status, equivalent to being a listed building if it was in the UK? If so, then I would say Keep the article.
 * So would I - but as far as I could find out, it doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - I can find no significant coverage about this town hall in reliable sources. This list of heritage places in Victoria does not have this town hall as an item. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The building is on the Victoria Heritage Register. . What Whpq has just cited is the national list, not the state list. I'm not familiar with the heritage registers in Australia, so I don't know how significant state-listing is, but it's obviously considered to have at least some historic and/or architectural significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Thanks for pointing out the state listing. A state listed historic building indicates that it is has notable significance and has undergone research and examination that qualifies it for the listing. As such, I'm switching my !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment - OK, we've established that the building is on a heritage register, which gives weight to the argument for notability. Now that info needs to be added to the article. The link Necrothesp gave would appear to provide plenty of info to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added the basic assertion of notability (historic building), I'll leave it to editors more interested in buildings to expand it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Being on the state register is suffificent for notability  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 23 March 2011 (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.