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 Nominator Withdrew. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu post office building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Passing mention, it was obviously destroyed in an earthquake. However, it is only passingly mentioned in all sources as being a 'destroyed building' (one of many) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. It was one of many buildings toppled in a disaster. We can't have articles on every destroyed buildings whenever a disaster happened.—Chris!_c/t 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Keep Possible Systemic bias on this AFD. Pichilemu is in South America, that's the main reason it can't be notable in the United States or in a English language encyclopedia. But I tell you, why the fuck not? The building was one of the oldest in the town, constructed by one of their founders, and that merits an article. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of old building in Eygpt and China. Should they have article? Being old =/= being notables—Chris!_c/t 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination itself and your vote seem rather WP:POINT-y to me. Just because I AFD'd an article you were working on, the first thing you do is a vendetta. Nice. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to call it what you want. Also one !vote is not going to matter if this is really notable. Note that I didn't start this afd.—Chris!_c/t 00:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the local history scene like in Chile?©Geni 01:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstand your question, English is not my mother tongue. :) I've tried to synthetize most of early history of Pichilemu, Chile in in this article, that does mention who and when was this building created. If you don't care to read it: Daniel Ortúzar was the owner of hacienda San Antonio de Petrel, that originated the Pichilemu city. He created the former neighborhood of Daniel Ortúzar Avenue, with houses to his occupants/tenants, the so recalled post office, an hotel. Later Agustín Ross created a casino, a park... all of this area eventually became a National Monument of Chile in 2004. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I mean was is Chile like the UK where local history societies and the like have published so much stuff over the years that it is posible to write a verifiable article on any given building if you really want to?©Geni 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! No. Books about buildings in Chile are unlikely to be ever published/written. I'm not so sure if José Arraño Acevedo's book Pichilemu y sus alrededores turísticos does a short mention about this building, but it would not help much. I'm a bit sad this article and Pichilemu Fire Bureau are risked to go to the cemetery just because I nominated a WP:NOTNEWS article and it went so far like a vendetta. Diego Grez (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article with information from this book. My dad had it on his library, and allowed me to improve it much more. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My post office had a postal shooting - which in fact coined the term "going postal" - and the post office has no article on wikipedia. All this one has going for it is that it was demolished in a earthquake. For these reasons I believe it fails notability. Peter.C • talk 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, you haven't even considered to look at the references. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See other smaller articles about buildings like Coca-Cola Bottling Company Building (Columbia, Missouri), Palmolive Building, Wainwright Building... The disputed article needs more focus on who founded it, when, why, and how. In general, it's notable. Gryllida 02:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; evidently notable building; we have lots of articles on single buildings that have a significant history, even if local. Have references, is verifiable. Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm seeing enough references to convince me of its notability. C628 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, facts stated by ref four convince me it's notable. It's one of those things where there is going to be bias against sources that can't be found online. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:59, 11 September 2010 (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.