Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle Police Stables


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Newcastle Police Stables

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On a local heritage list. I don;t think we include automatically buildings that are on only local or state lists, only national ones. I see nothing particualrly distinctive about this to make an exception.  DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Newcastle Gaol Museum. While probably not notable in its own right, it seems it is part of this museum, so any useful content can be moved there. Bob talk 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now merged this to the gaol article. Bob talk 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep notable in its own right sourcing is in paper records includes being a site related to the activities of Moondyne Joe, also note this is part of a GLAM project issues are being addressed within that process. Gnangarra 02:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much as I love the work being done by this project and tend to err on the side of inclusion, this building is only registered at a local council level, and I'm unconvinced that every building on a municipal historic buildings register is notable for a Wikipedia article. I feel like there needs to be some broader discussion about what recognition is sufficient for Wikipedia notability, but preferably before going about deleting work already done. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Bob and commonsense as there is no point in a standalone article when there is not that much to say about the building.--Charles (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Newcastle Gaol Museum is the sensible thing to do. Local heritage listing means little in Australia, and is not establishing notability. -- ELEKHHT 03:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * could please explain how you come to the conclusion that local heritage listing means little in Australia thats a rather big generalised statement to be throwing around without supporting evidence. Gnangarra 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a colossal number of buildings on local heritage registers in Australia, many of which I'm entirely unconvinced are notable for Wikipedia articles. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I certainly haven't been so far. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that this is expressly part of the gaol complex, which is on the Western Australia State Heritage Register, so it isn't just locally listed. That doesn't, of course, mean it wouldn't be better as a redirect to Newcastle Gaol Museum. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Agree that it does not change the conclusion. -- ELEKHHT 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep this building is not only listed on the local (Shire of Toodyay) heritage inventory but it is also listed on the State Heritage Register ("Entry in the Register is reserved for places of State cultural heritage significance and is the highest recognition afforded at the State level") and classified by the National Trust.Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not? The whole complex is, but the whole complex isn't being debated - the separate notability of this small component is, and it's only separately listed at a local level. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of a GLAM project as Gnangarra notes above, the complex has notability beyond the local area, and issues are in the process of being addressed. If they can't be, the project organisers will undoubtedly merge and redirect as appropriate. This AfD is rather premature. Orderinchaos 17:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the above discussion at all (given that all your points have been already eloquently addressed: i.e. GLAM is not a criteria for AfD, complex notability does not confer notability to each structure separately, etc...)? -- ELEKHHT 02:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * your unwillingness to express any good faith in an ongoing GLAM projects ability to address issues, especially in light of the fact that its being run by experienced editors, supported by a chapter and clearly has a plan in place to address sourcing that is now only a week away is disheartening in the least. To have you comment every time a person that supports keeping the article expresses their opinion really enforces the misconception to new editors about Wikipedia. Your point has been made you think it should be merged because its part of a complex despite being a heritage registered building in its own right repeating that every time some disagrees with your opinion is unnecessary. Gnangarra 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it easy. No need for personal attacks and misrepresenting my edits, that would hardly inspire new editors. Please don't be discouraged by the above, as nobody was proposing the removal of any notable information. -- ELEKHHT 03:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry it wasnt a personal attack, nor am I being discouraged by this discussion I was just trying to point out the normal etiquette when participating in AfDs is that you dont need to respond to every opinion expressed that disagrees with you. By all means if you have something new to contribute to the discussion then do so. Gnangarra 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear as to why being part of a GLAM project is supposed to affect notability. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * based on information to hand at least one of the sources is book published before ISBN were used which is no longer in publication, combined with anecdotal evidence(further publications on the subject available) there is sufficient reason to believe this building is notable. The article was created within the wikitown project by a new user based on guidance from experienced editors with the knowledge that followup activities would be needed to address content development and that the followup wont occur within the timeframe of an afd, therefore some WP:AGF wouldnt go astray. Gnangarra 12:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fair argument, in which case I vote keep. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as an article relative to Toodyay history, and contrary to assertions otherwise I would consider toodyay articles have sufficient developable content regardless of when they are 'captured' for debates such as these, as the further information to develop exists, and simply has not been exploited sufficiently to date. satusuro 12:48, 1 March 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.