Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Belconnen

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 speedy close per popular demand. JYolkowski // talk 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Belconnen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable shopping mall, with no references affirming notability per WP:CORP --Elonka 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close please, can we have some centralised discussion about shopping centres before nominating any more? Andjam 05:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Andjam. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, Andjam is right on this one. No endorsment of delete/keep yet. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or Merge per WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia's basic notability criteria are obvious and simple, there's no sign of any reliable external sources. Discuss and come up with some guidelines for malls if you want (and I'll be happy to provide my input), but in the mean time, we go with the guidelines we have, and there are none that support keeping this article. Switch to keep if verifiable, reliable secondary sources are provided that have non-trivial coverage of this mall. That's really the only guideline we need! Xtifr _tälk 09:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save: This article should be saved. There are credible external links and this article is up to scratch with other Westfield articles. --Whats new? 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a parking area list, a toilet map and a general map do not constitute non-trivial coverage by reliable external sources! And as for the other Westfield articles, perhaps they should be nominated and deleted as well. Xtifr _tälk 10:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion why this would pass WP:CORP. Seraphimblade 10:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per above; and because the nom is indiscriminately nominating shopping centres for deletion without checking their notability, on the basis alone of having no references - if that were the case most articles in WP would have to be deleted. That's why we have a "references" tag; AfDs are not the way to go. This is one of the biggest shopping centres in the ACT too, so failing this, and there are a few notable references listed in the article (apart from the external links), Keep. JROBBO 11:50, 26 November 2006 (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.