Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Thorpe Aquatic and Fitness Centre

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe Aquatic and Fitness Centre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am concerned that this does not meet the criteria for inclusion. It appears to be a single fitness centre, not part of a chain, that is located only in suburb of Sydney. A Google search suggests the only results are the company home page and various mirror'd search sites, and one page on City Of Sydney. There appears to be no third party coverage of note, or any indication of significance or uniqueness about this fitness centre. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, just to clarify, the website says this a public facility co-managed by the city of Sydney and the YMCA. More to the point, the sources show that it's an architecturally notable building, one of the last designed by the important Australian architect Harry Seidler. [1][2] [3][4][5][6][7][8] etc. etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is memorial of the swimmer who got five gold medal in Olympics for Australia and i think he deserve the honour. Ashishlohorung (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an architecturally-significant building and the last building designed by an important and controversial architect.--Grahame (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Architecturally significant landmark. Single fitness centre? Did the nominator even Google? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An award winning building, designed by one of Australia's most notable architects and named after a top sportsman is surely notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not sure that just being named after someone famous is grounds for notability, but being designed by a notable architect is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep notable architecture as one of the last buildings designed by Harry Seidler as well as a significant public facility in central Sydney. It received significant media coverage for both, as shown above by Arxiloxos. --ELEKHH^T 22:17, 10 February 2014 (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.