Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturt Mall (3rd 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 delete. The two "keep" opinions do not address the arguments for deletion and indeed barely make an argument of their own.  Sandstein  09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sturt Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. this was last nominated 4 years ago. This is a relatively small shopping centre by WP standards of 15,000 square metres LibStar (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Small, non-notable mall without sources sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just like thousands of other malls around the globe. Nothing notable shown.--Rpclod (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was outdated and I updated and fixed this article. BugMenn (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the article fixed?? Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

even with additions it's just routine coverage of renovations in a local paper. All shopping centres get renovations. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  This should not have been brought to AfD, as there is no theoretical case for a WP:DEL8 deletion.  See previous AfDs for additional info.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outcome of the first AFD was to merge the article into Wagga Wagga. There was no theoretical reason why it should have been recreated from then on.Ajf773 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editing guidelines posted in the edit notice here, WP:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines#Contributing to AfD discussions in the section "Wikiquette" states, "avoid the use of sarcastic language".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point is? Cannot see any evidence of this.Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial local place nothing here for actual independent notability or anything to suggest anything of it, especially since it's obviously trivial to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 27 November 2016 (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.