Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World’s largest all beer can house

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 delete. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World’s largest all beer can house

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

Wikipedia isn't the Guinness Book of Records, so I'm not sure what place this article has here - isn't it a WP:ONEEVENT? It's about a self-supporting structure of beer cans that was made by students to raise money for a charity (and subsequently dismantled). Neither is it the world's largest because it was not validated by the World Records people. I'm not sure where this could be merged to (obviously not in its detailed entirety) because there's no existing Wikipedia article on Thoroughbred Park, Beer Day Out (festival) or Shake It Up (charity). Sionk (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have an article on things made from beer cans. Darwin Beer Can Regatta, for example is similar and is in need of good sources, although that should not be hard. It could be combined with some of the material on the beer can house. Perhaps the article could be restricted to Australian things made from beer cans, as it seems to be a particularly Australian idea if not specifically Australian. The press love them so there should be lots of sources. I am not sure of a title for it. Something like Construction from beer cans in Australia or similar. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a paragraph could be added to the Beer can article? Sionk (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable structure as evidenced by the RS coverage provided in the article. (If a theoretical beer can structures article was made, it could be merged instead.) Notability is not determined by importance, but rather by coverage and this passes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses a unique structure – the walls and roof were made from non loadbearing material, the aluminium cans. The total weight was about 200 kg with the roof weighing about 70 kg. The main sources are primary, being photos and a time lapse video. The time lapse video would be almost impossible to fake. The primary sources were backed up by newspaper and TV coverage. As far as validation of the record, this was discussed in an earlier, rejected draft. Guinness book of records didn’t have a suitable category (they have a category for aluminum can sculpture which are solid objects and therefore didn’t suit the freestanding house). Although Guinness might be the most well known institution in this area, there are others. The Academy of world records accepted the house as a world record but it was never registered because a substantial fee was required. RecordSetter accepted the world record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwhatman (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article needs rename, we don't normally title things by "world's largest", it looks like roadside marketing (WP:PEACOCK). There is no reliable body to determine since Guinness doesn't have a category. RecordSetter appears to be crowd sourced. Not saying this information can't be in the article but the title should be scaled back. -- GreenC 05:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New title could be House built entirely of used aluminium cans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwhatman (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Covered extensively as a curiosity, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTRIPLEYSBELIEVEITORNOT. Now, time for me to get to work on accumulating raw material for the world's first all beer bottle footstool. (It's 5 pm somewhere!!!) —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment trivialises the huge effort and engineering issues in constructing a house out of non load bearing material. Wikipedia is full of curiosity items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwhatman (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That argument is 100% Other stuff exists SPACKlick (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First reference is the very definition of WP:OR, 2nd source established the festival, not the house. I doubt that the record setter source is WP:RS, 4th and 5th sources are local coverage (significant but misdated across less than a month), 6th source is a repeat of the 4th, 7th source is not a source but a note that a source may once have existed, The last source is the only one that gives me pause. So referring to [[WP:NOTNEWS], Criterion 1 doesn't apply, this isn't a breaking event. Criteria 2 however is the one that applies, I can't find any reference to this that wasn't made within 2 months of the house being built. so not sure how enduring it is. Noteworthy is that this reference refers to a beer can house made from more cans that has been designated a landmark in Texas, which would dispute the claim of record holding or limit it to largest Australian or largest not upcycled etc. although further reading suggests it has a house inside it holding it up. More sources I found seem to refer to the Houston house than the Canberra house. I don't think WP:PEACOCK would apply if this article were sufficiently sourced to reliable sources. I don't think WP:ONEVENT applies as this isn't about a person but an event itself. I think the relevant policy is WP:GNG and it fails, not significant coverage, minimal RS. Comes a little close to WP:IINFO. Maybe Merge with Beer can pyramid, as that article could stnad for other notable beer can structures. Maybe merge into the Darwin Beer Can Regatta, as an event at one of those events. But it certainly isn't worthy of its own article SPACKlick (talk) 21:17, 11 July 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.