Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphne Civic Center

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 per WP:HEY, WP:SNOW. No-one would reasonably contend that the subject does not meet the general notability guideline in light of the 5+ articles specifically devoted to this in reliable sources. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 09:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Civic Center[edit]

A convention centre. It's differnet fomr all the other convention centres because, er, because.... well, not it isn't. No references, no inbound links. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single source that does anything else than verify its existence. (Wow, this has been orphaned for two years?!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure Ms. Civic Centre is a very fine woman but...a two year orphan with virtually nothing in the way of sources and nothing apparently sourcable? If more can be added to this and is verifiable, I'll reconsider, but as it stands this doesn't look promising. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral after Dravecky's expasion of the article. It's certainly of enough local notability to be borderline for an article. I still question whether it has more widespread notability, but I'm not going to oppose any suggestions of keeping this now. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - f~~ails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:REF.~~ Has been expanded and sourced.--S_RX 01:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't fail WP:V but may fail WP:N. Its basically a rec centre in Alabama as this search shows. Artene50 (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as this facility was the subject of significant press coverage (which I have used to expand this article with properly referenced statements) in reliable third-party sources during its proposal, construction, and upon its completion. Further it still receives direct coverage from time to time, as evidenced by the WPMI TV report. (In any case, notability is not temporary.) I urge others to re-examine this article in light of this update and reconsider any decision to delete. - Dravecky (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to met the requirements of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:REF now, though it's still an orphan. Altairisfar _talk 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC) O.K., now it's no longer an orphan. Altairisfar _talk 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've added a link from the Alabama and Daphne, Alabama articles but will confess to being at a bit of a loss for other logical places from which it could be linked. - Dravecky (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since it is a real convention centre. Artene50 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to the editor who added the references. Notability is now clear. --Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 27 July 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.