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 no consensus.
ATraintalk 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:MILL. Small, and insignificant shopping centre that isn't notable enough for an article.
Ajf773 (
talk) 05:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep there are multiple news articles over an extended period.
Paul foord (
talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - this centre is as notable IMO as a number of other sites already listed in
Category:Shopping centres in Adelaide. Yes it is a stub, and neglected/underdeveloped, but probably wouldn't be an AfD nominee if it had been more developed in the past. A second option I would be ok with (in preference to deletion) would be to retain and merge the content with
Salisbury, South Australia, which at present, lacks a retail/commercial section. Thanks.
JabberJawJAPANtalk 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. please demonstrate how it actually meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG.
LibStar (
talk) 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
To quote from
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement".
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge It's not a formal guideline, but in practice any shopping center with an area less than 100,000 square metres (roughly,1 million square feet) is almost never found notable, unless it's the only one in a wide area, or a historical monument, or otherwise distinctive. The best course probably will be to make use of it for a shopping section in the city article, as mentioned above DGG (
talk ) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (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.
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 no consensus.
ATraintalk 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:MILL. Small, and insignificant shopping centre that isn't notable enough for an article.
Ajf773 (
talk) 05:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep there are multiple news articles over an extended period.
Paul foord (
talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - this centre is as notable IMO as a number of other sites already listed in
Category:Shopping centres in Adelaide. Yes it is a stub, and neglected/underdeveloped, but probably wouldn't be an AfD nominee if it had been more developed in the past. A second option I would be ok with (in preference to deletion) would be to retain and merge the content with
Salisbury, South Australia, which at present, lacks a retail/commercial section. Thanks.
JabberJawJAPANtalk 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. please demonstrate how it actually meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG.
LibStar (
talk) 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
To quote from
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement".
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge It's not a formal guideline, but in practice any shopping center with an area less than 100,000 square metres (roughly,1 million square feet) is almost never found notable, unless it's the only one in a wide area, or a historical monument, or otherwise distinctive. The best course probably will be to make use of it for a shopping section in the city article, as mentioned above DGG (
talk ) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (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.