153:) 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.
185:
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
309:
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
144:
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
630:
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
464:
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
479:
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
584:
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
450:
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.
170:
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
Knowledge (XXG).
77:
480:
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.
409:
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.--
589:
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
514:
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
72:
401:
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
667:
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.
541:
137:
247:
149:
branch being withdrawn (and therefore incidental non significant coverage in niche websites). The only two mentions in a major media outlet (in this case
436:
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.
104:
99:
108:
374:
Almost all, if not all the references are "non-trivial" by
Knowledge (XXG) standards, ie they're not "directory listings or store hours." --
91:
719:
698:
671:
659:
644:
622:
605:
559:
531:
488:
474:
459:
445:
431:
418:
396:
383:
369:
356:
339:
318:
304:
288:
263:
237:
216:
198:
180:
161:
56:
302:
17:
652:
Referenced, cited, and well written article. I thought we had policies like WP:N to stop things like this from going to AfD.
679:. Well referenced, well set out. This is the standard of article we keep here. Should never have made it to AfD. Survives
737:
36:
736:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
95:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
515:
586:
190:) and both focus on the parent company's financials not the plaza itself. This plaza is simply not notable.
632:
594:
347:- There is enough secondary coverage of this subject to warrant inclusion and to support all the content.--
668:
300:
554:
578:
their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
361:
Can you please look at these references and show me the non trivial mentions? Cos I ain't seeing any.
656:
601:- but the article is probably large enough to justify being broken out from the locality article. --
335:
254:
87:
62:
599:
substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability
691:
527:
414:
379:
352:
233:
484:
470:
455:
441:
427:
392:
365:
314:
297:
212:
194:
176:
157:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
707:
423:
You are talking about sourcing. The sourcing is clearly good. Notability is however lacking.
640:
618:
548:
203:
It's more than enough, and the place certainly hasn't become less notable since there was a
653:
331:
187:
150:
680:
715:
684:
523:
410:
375:
348:
285:
229:
602:
481:
466:
452:
437:
424:
389:
362:
311:
208:
191:
172:
154:
49:
125:
636:
614:
388:
They only mention the centre in passing as part of coverage of stores within.
228:
Building does not seem to have any historic or architectural significance. --
711:
273:
568:
_- I am not sure why the nominator dismisses sources other than the
730:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
146:
78:
Articles for deletion/Greensborough Plaza (2nd nomination)
572:- as being reliable - they are published , I assume by a
132:
121:
117:
113:
593:
I can't actually see it is really a notable place per
465:
single person who disagrees with you into submission.
522:change but it clearly appears that it has not. -
272:, well-referenced article, claims to notability.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
740:). No further edits should be made to this page.
613:In my view clearly notable and well-referenced.
591:(is downmarketing a word? probably not but ... )
542:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
8:
186:are from a major media outlet (in this case
330:appears to be non-notable shopping arcade
248:list of Malls-related deletion discussions
296:, numerous references assert notability.
73:Articles for deletion/Greensborough Plaza
580:. I note that I cannot find any of the
540:: This debate has been included in the
246:: This debate has been included in the
145:mentions - but mainly as a result of a
70:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
310:are related to the parent company.
69:
576:and I see no reason to doubt that
24:
48:- The outcome looks obvious. --
1:
633:primary notability criterion
574:reliable publication process
757:
595:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
720:13:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
699:01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
672:17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
660:05:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
645:05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
623:23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
606:22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
560:21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
532:18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
489:04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
475:04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
460:04:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
446:04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
432:04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
419:03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
397:02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
384:02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
370:00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
357:00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
340:22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
319:21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
305:19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
289:18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
264:15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
238:14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
217:12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
199:12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
181:12:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
162:12:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
57:23:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
733:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
587:Greensborough, Victoria
68:AfDs for this article:
88:Greensborough Plaza
63:Greensborough Plaza
631:Knowledge (XXG)'s
696:
592:
562:
545:
486:
457:
429:
394:
367:
316:
266:
261:
251:
196:
159:
748:
735:
694:
690:
590:
582:Inside retailing
557:
551:
546:
536:
485:
456:
428:
403:Inside Retailing
393:
366:
315:
282:
279:
276:
259:
257:
256:Ten Pound Hammer
252:
242:
195:
158:
135:
129:
111:
54:
44:The result was
34:
756:
755:
751:
750:
749:
747:
746:
745:
744:
738:deletion review
731:
692:
555:
549:
338:
280:
277:
274:
255:
131:
102:
86:
83:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
754:
752:
743:
742:
725:
723:
722:
701:
674:
662:
647:
625:
608:
563:
534:
516:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
342:
334:
324:
323:
322:
321:
291:
267:
260:and his otters
240:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
188:The Australian
151:The Australian
142:
141:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
753:
741:
739:
734:
728:
727:
726:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
702:
700:
697:
695:
688:
687:
682:
678:
675:
673:
670:
666:
663:
661:
658:
655:
651:
648:
646:
642:
638:
634:
629:
626:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
607:
604:
600:
596:
588:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
561:
558:
552:
543:
539:
535:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
490:
487:
483:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
463:
462:
461:
458:
454:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:
398:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
320:
317:
313:
308:
307:
306:
303:
301:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
283:
271:
268:
265:
258:
249:
245:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:snowball keep
202:
201:
200:
197:
193:
189:
184:
183:
182:
178:
174:
169:
166:
165:
164:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
139:
134:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
732:
729:
724:
703:
689:
685:
676:
669:Orderinchaos
664:
649:
627:
610:
598:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
537:
519:
518:. Consensus
511:
406:
402:
344:
327:
298:Juliancolton
293:
269:
243:
225:
207:, dear god.
204:
167:
143:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
550:Fabrictramp
693:Buzz Me...
570:Australian
556:talk to me
566:Weak Keep
524:Dravecky
411:Oakshade
376:Oakshade
349:Oakshade
230:Thetrick
138:View log
708:WP:SNOW
603:Matilda
482:Viridae
467:Rebecca
453:Viridae
438:Rebecca
425:Viridae
390:Viridae
363:Viridae
332:doktorb
312:Viridae
209:Rebecca
192:Viridae
173:Rebecca
155:Viridae
105:protect
100:history
52:JForget
706:- per
637:Canley
615:Murtoa
407:Herald
328:Delete
226:Delete
133:delete
109:delete
686:Sting
657:Years
336:words
168:Keep.
136:) – (
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
716:talk
704:Keep
681:WP:N
677:Keep
665:Keep
654:Five
650:Keep
641:talk
635:. --
628:Keep
619:talk
611:Keep
538:Note
528:talk
512:Keep
471:talk
442:talk
415:talk
405:the
380:talk
353:talk
345:Keep
294:Keep
286:Talk
270:Keep
244:Note
234:talk
213:talk
177:talk
147:Myer
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
46:Keep
712:JRG
683:.--
547:--
544:.
520:can
262:•
253:--
250:.
718:)
710:.
643:)
621:)
597:-
553:|
530:)
473:)
444:)
417:)
382:)
355:)
284:|
236:)
215:)
179:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
714:(
639:(
617:(
526:(
469:(
440:(
413:(
378:(
351:(
281:P
278:I
275:J
232:(
211:(
175:(
140:)
130:(
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.