Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building
The history of getting World Heritage status for the Royal Exhibition Building. Source material - an article by Arnold Zable and minutes of various meetings. Unencyclopedic: shimmer in the crackling heat or emerged, triumphant, from the mists. The subject warrants a few lines in the Royal Exhibition Building article not an whole article by itself. -- RHaworth 08:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Striong disagree. You are obviously unfamilar with the work involved. tb is a hiostorical record.  i suggest that you continue to act in a vanalistic manner and continue to remove posts that others whcih to make a contribuition. The information published is a very relvant bhistorical reciord on teh nomination of the Royal Exhibition Buildings and Melbourne heritage.  I do not believe you read the content before you acted so recklessly. If you continue to act in such a manner I will lodge a complaint with the editor. now which version have you removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbcity (talk • contribs)
 * Do tell me who this editor is and how I may contact them to defend myself. -- RHaworth 09:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator of this post is not a vandal. Melbcity, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information.  It has specific requirements as to what is suitable for inclusion, such as articles being encyclopedic in style, not copyrighted material, written from a neutral point of view, be fact and not opinion, and notability.  The deletion of this article isn't a reflection on the content of it, just that it is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia.  -- Chuq 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are wrong this is a historical record of a public forum related to the nomination of the Royal exhibition Bulidings. I most certainly have seen many other posts that I would claim to have been subjective and not worthy of inclusion. I have chosen these particular opsost for good reason. Those that are commenting and seeking to remove this information are not aware of nature of teh issue involved. The State premier wanted to demoplish the Royal Exhibitiuon Buidlinsg and it is only as a result of this public camaign that the nomination for world heritage progressed. It is a historicazl record relected to the hsitory of this significant Melbourne land mark. I chose to publish it as a seperate article in much the same way as other articles are published and linked. You either want to support a community based contributuion or you don't.  The material is not copyrighted. it is ion the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbcity (talk • contribs) 2006-10-22 09:21:36
 * Delete - there is no ownership or authorship of articles on wikipedia as per Sign your posts on talk pages and Ownership of articles. What Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought.  It seems that other than some poitical statements breaching WP:Not, the content of this article is covered by Royal Exhibition Building.--Golden Wattle  talk 09:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 10:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non encyclopedic.  Any relevant NPOV content could be merged to main article.  If kept needs NPOV and wikification QuiteUnusual 13:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any. And notice that this article is the result of the removal of this text by editors from Royal Exhibition Building. Uncle G 13:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, recent well-intentioned edits by have actually obscured what this article is.  It is clearer in this version of the article.  The article is a collection of primary source texts, namely a copyrighted newspaper article, some presentations, and some minutes of meetings, with a couple of extra, apparently personal commentary, paragraphs thrown in.  From the comments above, where xe is talking about complaining to "the editor", and the comments on Talk:The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building, where xe is talking about this being a missing chapter from a book by David Dunstan, it appears that  has mistaken Wikipedia for a self-publishing service or a magazine.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  It is not a free hosting service, nor a document repository, nor a publisher of first instance.  The place for publishing additional chapters for books is elsewhere.  The place for re-publishing copyrighted newspaper articles is elsewhere, too.  I see no evidence whatsoever that, as Melbcity claims, The Age, a publication that asserts copyright over its archives and that charges a fee for back issues of articles for as far back as 1990, has waived its copyright over its 1996 article written by Arnold Zable.  Even if it had, Wikipedia wouldn't want it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a hosting, publication, or document repository service.  Strong delete.  Uncle G 13:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per Uncle G. By all means preserve the Dome (I have seen it for myself), but get rid of this screed.  Edeans 22:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all relevant material is covered in Royal Exhibition Building. The rest: meeting minutes, a speech and a newspaper article of dubious copyright status, are so what Wikipedia is not it's not funny (and neither are Melbcity's unsigned comments and accusations of vandalism). --Canley 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say Merge anything relevant, but as there appears to be nothing relevant that isn't already elsewhere, I'll say Delete. Lankiveil 01:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Upon further contemplation, maybe this could also be Transwikied to Wikisource? Formatting would still need cleaning up, but it would otherwise seem an appropriate venue for this information.  Lankiveil 01:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete. The relevant information is already in the main article so there is no need for this. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Extremely POV article says: "You are destroying a place of grace and grandeur. You are destroying the peaceful ambience of its surrounds. You are destroying the work and vision of our collective past. You are destroying aspects of our common heritage. Yes, our heritage. ...Stop it before it is too late" Wikipedia is not a rally for a cause.  Edison 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Clearly the Royal Exhibition Building should make reference to this debate in a balanced way.--Grahamec 02:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. JROBBO 03:20, 26 October 2006 (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.