Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockdale Plaza

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. TigerShark (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdale Plaza[edit]

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

Local shopping mall within Sydney's suburb of Rockdale, no assertion of notability or significance. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. run of the mill suburban centre. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain If you delete this shopping centre article then you would have to delete about another 30 Sydney suburban shopping centre articles which are on par with this article. J Bar (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid reason for keep, in which the likelihood of an administrator (who is closing the AfD) taking the vote into consideration is very poor. It does not matter one bit that 30 Sydney suburban shopping centres have their own articles. Such pages, including Westfield Parramatta and Westfield Bondi Junction pass the WP:GNG with independent published sources. The subject in question fails the GNG with no availability of sources to demonstrate notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass over the said articles and PROD'd about three and tagged about half for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's now over 7 days, was this AfD properly listed? LibStar (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2011 (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.