Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium

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) Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium

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

Not a notable building JetBlast (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. The recently-created one-sentence generic stub doesn't provide any hints of it, but Santa Cruz Civic is almost certainly a notable building, and sources exist to support an article. The main problem here would probably the time required to dig through the many, many potential sources[1] to identify the best ones to use as sources for the article, But for starters here's a detailed 2000 article about the history of the auditorium[2]. And for a different perspective, some news reports from around the nation about the 1956 incident when the police shut down a rock-and-roll concert there to prevent "what they called the "suggestive, stimulating and tantalizing motions induced by the provocative rhythms of an all-negro band."[3][4][5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added text and sources, so I'm switching my !vote to keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements to the article by Arxiloxos. Nice work. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Community landmark. Adequate sourcing showing. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there are claims of notability (independent sources with in-depth reporting on multiple aspects of it). DMacks (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although this appears to be reaching WP:SNOWBALL Keep, I have concerns regarding the notability of the subject. I found multiple passing mentions of the subject of this article that we are considering for AfD, I have found very little that talks about the subject directly in a way that meets significant coverage per WP:GNG. There are a lot of mentions of several events occurring at the subject, however those can be considered routine coverage for those events and are not primarily about the subject itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The building is 70 years old; by California standards, that's historic! I don't think anyone has designated it as such, but it has acquired a fair amount of coverage in its 70 years. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any news sources that are (approximately) "damn that's an old building--unusual for this area!" that would help allay RCLC's concern. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I would say speedy as the nom forwarded absolutely no argument as to why they think this is "not a notable building." Collectively there is enough secondary coverge to be significant enough to have an article. Not only is it historic by Santa Cruz standards, while a great amount of the historic buildings in downtown Santa Cruz was destroyed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, this one survived, adding to its notability.--Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have added to the article the information that the auditorium was used as an emergency shelter after the earthquake; a lot of the surrounding buildings were unfit for occupancy. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2012 (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.