This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
I'm not sure how this building fits in with WP notability guidelines. The building was designed by a prominent local architect who designed a number of buildings locally including many churches that are on WP and is of a time-frame contemporaneous with them.
Roypenfold (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add to above; the building is much loved by many residents of the town and there was a furore when a proposal to demolish the building as a result of a number of planning applications - does that not make it notable?
Roypenfold (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roypenfold, notability is primarily a measurement about how much attention the subject has received in secondary, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the provided sources are either insufficiently independent, or devote insufficient attention to the Observer Building in particular.
That having been said, the furor you mention is likely to have generated coverage in local publications at a minimum, and I see that the BBC citation actually is covering this. Upon review, I think there's enough coverage (mostly in the BBC and The Independent pieces) to let this out of the new page queue, but I would prefer to see at least one more citation of similar quality before removing the tag. signed, Rosguilltalk22:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]