Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabanks Shopping Centre

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. A Train^talk 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parabanks Shopping Centre

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

fails WP:CORP and GNG. a run of the mill small suburban shopping centre LibStar (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 18 September 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]
Comment, it may not appear at List of largest shopping malls, but at 21,000 sqm and 70 stores, its not small, more like a medium sized mall. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 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. JabberJaw_JAPAN talk 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.