Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

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 and moved to WTC Northbank Wharf. -- Longhair\^talk 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

Article on a building in Melbourne appears to fail the notability guidelines. Prod removed without comment by author, even after I asked for an explanation. —BradV 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Appears to be not notable. The only news hit with results for "World Trade Center" + 'melbourne' is this, and it just happens to include the two by coincidence and is not about the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using the Australian spelling centre is somewhat more successful, especially by using keywords "crown" or "yarra".

I hadn't thought of that, thanks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to WTC Northbank Wharf, its current name. There does seem to be a fair amount of coverage over the years, in part due to its being the original home of the Crown Casino (now part of the Crown Casino and Entertainment Complex across the river) and now as some adjunct to the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre. It's not that it's tall, it's that its redevelopment, tenants, and its sheer size as a major office-building complex have kept it in the news. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WTC Northbank Wharf, which seems to be the current name of the place. I wasn't thinking and searched under a different spelling of the word center than is used by Australia and Europe. There seem to be more than a few bits and pieces now, but since this is no longer the name of the place, it should be moved and redirected there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move as above. Notable building (with its own postcode no less [1]!), but at least put it to the correct title. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Move - proceed with the move. I'm inclined to believe that buildings with their own postcodes are likely to be important enough to be notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Dhartung's arguments. Notable with its own postcode, etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move I've done a major cleanup and rewrite, and added 5 decent references. --Canley (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per above discussion - Denimadept (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move it is a building of note in Melbourne CBD, but the post code is a furphy the reason is because there are multiple postal exchanges within the suburb Melbourne the name is to ID the location only, like Cloisters in Perth. Gnan garra 03:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.