Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nationally Significant 20th-Century Architecture in South Australia


 * 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The result was speedy keep under WP:SK ground #1: Nomination withdrawn and no other editors advocate deletion.— S Marshall  T/C 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)'''

List of Nationally Significant 20th-Century Architecture in South Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an interesting topic. However, this article is (openly) ripped entirely from the index to one specific book, which is really pushing it with copyright, and it's hardly a neutral and verifiable list if we're randomly picking one particular architecture book to create authoritative lists from. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn due to below discussion.

Response 1
a) This guy is a turd making a personal attack on ME because he made an unjustified false claim against me and I complained and demanded that he either provide evidence to support his false claim, or withdrew and apologise. He has done neither. b) There was an Adelaide Wikipedia edit-a-thon on Sunday where many productive additions were made. This article was one on the requested articles. I expect that if ANY of the other editors who had been at the editathon had associated their names with this article, there would have been no problem. But as I said, this turd has a personal agenda against me.

Can somebody please close this nomination as a personal attack against me, and tell this turd to fuck off? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

More civil, more normal, less angry response
''This is an interesting topic. However, this article is (openly) ripped entirely from the index to one specific book, which is really pushing it with copyright, and it's hardly a neutral and verifiable list if we're randomly picking one particular architecture book to create authoritative lists from.'' - This statement is a) arrant nonsense b) Purely this guy's ignorant uninformed opinion.

The article is the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects list of 20th Century heritage buildings in Adelaide. This editor is NOT from Adelaide! Even if he were, I would take the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects opinion over his any and every day. PARTICULARLY given that they publish their opinion in a reliable source.

However, this article is (openly) ripped entirely from the index to one specific book - So what? It is a reliable source, and accurately attributed, but MUCH more significantly, it is NOT and article, it is a LIST, so this complainant is using an irrelevant set of criteria for his irrelevant claims.

and it's hardly a neutral and verifiable list if we're randomly picking one particular architecture book to create authoritative lists from. - Huh? Which planet does this ... "person" ... live on? NO, we are NOT "RANDOMLY" picking anything. This is the list from the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects. Please tell me if there is a better, more relevant, more qualified authority to produce such a list!

Would some admin please close this AFD immediately so that no more time is wasted? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, yeah, delete . First of all, as I would have thought was fairly obvious, The Drover's Wife is not, in fact, a he. I don't actually think there is a copyright issue here, but what the article essentially is is "List of architecture the Australian Institute of Architects considers to be Nationally Significant", which - and I'm open to being convinced here - does not seem to be sufficiently notable without secondary coverage. I mean, I can see why we have lists of natural heritage buildings and so forth, but there needs to be evidence of widespread significance. Frickeg (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit of an architecture nerd so if this worked as kind of a broad classification system (like the National Trust uses for general heritage and which has (rightly) been used to justify article notability) I think I'd be okay with using it. But this is literally just taking the index of a one-off, 120-item publication from one organisation and branding it as a general, broad list of buildings of national significance of a particular type, and I think that's a bit more problematic. I also seem to recall we've had material deleted before for copyright violations where someone's just taken the index of a book and used it as the basis for a Wikipedia list. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really an index, though, is it? It seems to be more of an appendix, and given that it does take the form of a list, I don't know that it would count as a copyvio (could be wrong). But yes, not sufficiently significant from what's on the page. Frickeg (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyright doesn't generally apply to lists, so in that sense there shouldn't be a problem. As a query, if this was a list of 20th Century South Australian architecture deemed nationally significant, without being fundamentally tied to the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, would there still be an issue? I don't think there is a major issue with the list, in that it seems no more problematic than any list of awards, and has the advantage that it is a list of awards compiled by a significant institution. But if it was broadened to include any architctural works in South Australia that have been identified as nationally significant in reliable sources, would that remove any concerns about the current focus? - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really a list of awards, though; it's more just a list of buildings the AIA thinks are significant. Which is fine, for the AIA, but I don't see that we need to be reproducing that list here. I was curious about how we had done things in the past in this area; the ACT has an all-inclusive list that tries to list literally every building that any organisation has considered significant (and a few that they haven't; the list is a bit of a mess). Melbourne and Perth have lists of heritage-listed buildings. On one matter Pdfpdf is quite right: Adelaide is, from what I can see, seriously under-represented in this area, and I completely agree that this needs to be rectified. I'm not sure this is the correct form for that rectification to take. I would think maybe something along the lines of the Canberra one, although perhaps with a slightly narrower focus? (Recognised by 2+ institutions, maybe?) Frickeg (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Frickeg and I hit an edit conflict, so I'll rewrite what I was going to say in response. As for the awards issue: what he said. In terms of broadening the focus, I was also writing a very similar post. Defining heritage significance for your average list (as in Frickeg's Melbourne and Perth examples) is relatively easy: we have state heritage registers, local heritage registers, and National Trust classifications, all of which are compiled into state government heritage databases in at least a few jurisdictions. I'd be very keen to see a similar list to those for Adelaide. But how would you - separately to general "heritage buildings" - neutrally and verifiably define "nationally significant architecture in a way that's different from the existing heritage format? One has pretty obvious criteria and sources, and one sounds like a bit of a nightmare of original research (having to cite that someone, somewhere, says it's of "national significance", whatever that means) that overlaps the heritage lists anyway. If this were moved to List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide, I'd not only be not questioning its encyclopedicness, I'd be helping write the damn thing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to catch up on the background of the list, and it seems from what media sources I've got so far that it was a move by the RAIA to recognise modern architecture which doesn't get included in the National Trust listings. I like the idea of having something broader than heritige listing, so I'd rather not tie it to that for the same reasons that the Royal Australian Institute of Architects chose not to. We do have a means of defining "nationally significant" at the moment - recognised in the register of nationally significant 20th century architecture - so that criteria is met, but a good method of broadening it would be a very nice move. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The logic behind what they're doing is completely understandable, I just feel like this list is confused and always going to a) overlap general heritage articles, and b) potentially be a bit difficult to source depending on how good the RAIA's online coverage of this is. What if we shifted towards a List of heritage listed sites in Adelaide, and included the RAIA's register as something we included in it alongside the usual state register, local register and National Trust? This feels to me like something that would cover this content in a much more integrated and easier to manage way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: There is an unrelated editor making good faith additions to the page. I was planning to make good faith additions to the page. Honestly, I don't understand a) That there is a problem; b) If there is a problem, what that problem is. (And yes, I did read the above. - Clearly, I've missed something.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, the problem is the narrowness of this list. It is basically what one organisation considers important, which is fine for them, but not really for a general encyclopedia. I like the suggestions above from Bilby and from The Drover's Wife regarding refactoring the list into something broader. Frickeg (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! Can someone make a concrete proposal agreeable to You and Drover's Wife? (I suggest that you and/or Drover's wife are perhaps the best people to do this ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I just suggested on Pdfpdf's talk page (and more or less said above) is that we shift this article into a broader List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide, and include the RAIA's register as a relevant source wherever we've got similar lists of heritage buildings. This way, the material in this article stays on Wikipedia, Wikipedia gets a long-overdue Adelaide heritage list, and both of them get merged together in a way that fits pretty easily and is a piece of cake to manage and verify. (And modern architectural heritage gets covered better across Australian Wikipedia, since it isn't just relevant to South Australia.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support this. Frickeg (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (At the risk of sounding like an automaton ... ) "Me too!" Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy with this, presuming that "heritage listed" is not taken to mean "National Trust listed", as that would preclude a lot of significant modern works. The RAIA seem to be an authoritive source on significant works outside of the National Trust. - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in response to what Bilby said: we've been operating under varying definitions of "heritage listed" depending on who wrote the article for quite some time; the WA editors in particular have yelled at me for trying to get them to agree on anything specific, but I've decided I'm okay with that because I think in the end their method makes a broader range of articles easier to defend at AfD. The state heritage register articles are generally listed in all the "lists of heritage buildings in X"; the local heritage register and National Trust in some of them, and the RAIA currently in none, and I'm very happy in light of this to consider the RAIA as just as notable for inclusion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Progressing from here
Along the lines of the above agreement, does someone want to take a crack at shifting this into a basic broader List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide page? It's not something quite so easily just moved without looking a little bit odd to the reader. I can get to it if need be but I've got a few other projects running. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that we're all moving in a similar direction (he said with a sigh of relief), there's no furious urgency. I'm happy to look at it tomorrow, but given that others were unimpressed with my original judgments, I am hesitant about pushing too far too quickly ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW: We also have the "Historic Houses" page, and there are also the buildings on North Terrace, and those along King Wm St. and around Vic Sq. I'm in NO hurry to turn a molehill into a mountain, but conversely, I don't want to spend the next 6 months compensating for stuff that we were "too busy" to think about now.
 * In any case, this discussion should be on the article talk page, not on an AFD page! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As for moving too quickly, I wouldn't worry too much: now we seem to have agreement on the focus of the article, what goes in it is pretty straightforward. I think the rest is manageable if we simply list the properties here, also refer to them in their street article if they're in major city streets, and if they're so big they can't fit in either, break them out into their own articles. The advantage of an article this broad is that where we currently are as long as its recorded as historically significant at some level (state, local, National Trust, RAIA), it can just go in as someone remembers to put it there. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (What can I say?) Fair enough, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing this AfD - as you noted on the page itself, the discussion has shifted way past that stage. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As the person who originally suggested using the Australian Institute of Architects list for our Edit-a-thon on Sunday (under the impression that there is no copyright in lists, e.g. see this), I'd like to make a few observations. When I started using the document, I saw it as a way of finding existing buildings that I could go and photograph, and use the photos to enhance WP articles. I was thinking of using the document myself to create a WP list, but Pdfpdf kindly undertook that task on Sunday and saved me the trouble. The AIA list itself is incomplete in that many of the details are very scanty, and I have been using the UniSA Architecture Museum's online database for extra information on the individual buildings and architects, some of whom already have WP articles on them.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of creating a single-page List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide, as it would just be too unwieldy. As Pdfpdf has already pointed out, we already have a List of historic houses in South Australia which, although incomplete, has 95 entries, mostly from the 19th century; and we do have a lot of other 19th century buildings, including many churches that could do with a list of their own. Then one could make yet another list, of significant heritage buildings that have been lost. (For example, just a couple of weeks ago the Advertiser ran a nostalgia piece on the South Australian Hotel. Then there are the pubs ... )

I envisage that this particular page would go far beyond the original AIA list, and become a much richer well-referenced resource, tying together a lot of linked articles. I note too that many of the recent buildings may have been placed on this list because they have won awards similar to this (and I don't know how far back these award systems go), but they may not yet have qualified or been assessed for heritage listing.

As it happens on Wednesday I will be meeting with the President (Prof. Norman Etheridge) and executive officer (Dr Darren Peacock) of the National Trust of SA on another matter, but I can bring this to their attention and get their advice. It so happens too, that Dr Peacock has already been invited as the guest speaker for the next meeting of the Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group, on 23 July. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Other" stuff

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (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.