Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greensborough Plaza (2nd nomination)

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 Keep - The outcome looks obvious. --JForget 23:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greensborough Plaza[edit]

Non notable shopping centre. Not paticuarly large (trust me - I live in that general area), not out of the ordinary - nothing that sets it apart from the hundreds of medium sized shopping centres around the country. Article is well referenced, but that doesn't establish notability. Some minor media mentions - but mainly as a result of a Myer branch being withdrawn (and therefore incidental non significant coverage in niche websites). The only two mentions in a major media outlet (in this case The Australian) and both focus on the parent company's financials not the plaza itself. The other mentions are primaily from a niche website that would probobly not be notable itself. They certainly do nothing to establish the notability of the plaza. Many of the reference links do not actually go to the articles they reference. Viridae ^Talk 12:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is well-referenced, contains decent claims to notability, and has already survived a deletion attempt twice, for gods sake. "If you fail to delete the first time, keep trying until you succeed" is not a helpful way of behaving on Wikipedia. Rebecca (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second deletion attempt. The first being close to a year ago. Bad faith accusations of repeatedly nominating until it is deleted do not help your argument. I didnt even know the article existed until about half an hour ago. The number of references =/= notability - only two of those refs are from a major media outlet (in this case The Australian) and both focus on the parent company's financials not the plaza itself. This plaza is simply not notable. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's more than enough, and the place certainly hasn't become less notable since there was a snowball keep, dear god. Rebecca (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Building does not seem to have any historic or architectural significance. --Thetrick (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-referenced article, claims to notability. JIP | Talk 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous references assert notability. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't. As mentioned in the nom, most of them are from a niche website with little to no notability itself. Most of the references do not focus on the plaza itself but mention it as the place OTHER businesses are doing things (ie insignificant coverage). The only mentions in mainstream media are related to the parent company. Viridae ^Talk 21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be non-notable shopping arcade doktorb _words^deeds 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough secondary coverage of this subject to warrant inclusion and to support all the content.--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please look at these references and show me the non trivial mentions? Cos I ain't seeing any. Viridae^Talk 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost all, if not all the references are "non-trivial" by Wikipedia standards, ie they're not "directory listings or store hours." --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They only mention the centre in passing as part of coverage of stores within. Viridae^Talk 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to have changed the subject from "trivial coverage" to "passing mentions". There seems to be a lot more than "passing mentions" in most of the references, included the Inside Retailing the Herald pieces. Contrary to your stipulation, an article topic does not have to be the "main subject" of secondary sources, but just that the subject is covered by sources enough to write a sourced article.--Oakshade (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are talking about sourcing. The sourcing is clearly good. Notability is however lacking. Viridae ^Talk 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the sourcing shows that the notability is easily there; the content of the sources easily makes out the centre's notability. Quit being querulous. Rebecca (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry but what? Most of the coverage is incidental and from a minor niche website. The only coverage from a sigificant media source focuses on the parent company, of which the plaza is just one asset. Where is the coverage significant enough to indicate this is a notable shopping centre. Viridae ^Talk 04:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is plenty of good coverage about the goings-on at the centre itself as far as the majority of people here are concerned. It was enough for a snowball keep last time it was nominated, which should be a pretty bloody obvious sign. You don't agree; we get that. Please quit trying to argue every single person who disagrees with you into submission. Rebecca (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you please be more civil. Bad faith accusations do not help the process. I do not believe that the sources are actually being looked at properly by those voting keep. I also don't believe that simply counting the neumber of references is any guide to wether this is worthy of coverage. The quality of coverage must be taken into account - and in this case it is all minor mentions. Consensus can change (it certainly seems possible here) so repeatedly referring to the snowball a year ago is unhelpful. Viridae ^Talk 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject serves a large geographical area, article asserts notability, notability is proven by references in reliable secondary sources, and the arguments for deletion add up to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus can change but it clearly appears that it has not. - Dravecky (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep _- I am not sure why the nominator dismisses sources other than the Australian - as being reliable - they are published , I assume by a reliable publication process and I see no reason to doubt that their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I note that I cannot find any of the Inside retailing articles online but I assume they were correctly cited - I think this is not a challenge to the sources. I think the Myer controversy is in fact part of a major shift in retailing in Australia (and probably elsewhere). It could be a feasible option that the coverage already in the article on Greensborough, Victoria could be expanded slightly and that would be sufficient and the Myer controversy form part of a larger article on the trends of landlord/small retailer relationships and Myer downmarketing to Target (is downmarketing a word? probably not but ... ) I can't actually see it is really a notable place per Wikipedia:Notability - substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability - but the article is probably large enough to justify being broken out from the locality article. --Matilda ^talk 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view clearly notable and well-referenced. Murtoa (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best-written and referenced shopping centre articles I've seen. If the nominator considers the references unreliable or trivial, then I beg to differ. Declaring a subject non-notable in spite of multiple references seems to be a subjective application of notability somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's primary notability criterion. --Canley (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced, cited, and well written article. I thought we had policies like WP:N to stop things like this from going to AfD. Five Years 05:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced article - cites both mainstream and trade publication coverage. Were someone to have the time and Factiva access I'm sure it could be improved even further. Orderinchaos 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, well set out. This is the standard of article we keep here. Should never have made it to AfD. Survives WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SNOW. JRG (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2008 (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.