Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kippax Centre

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 no consensus to either delete or to merge. Encourage editors to start a merge discussion on the talk page if so desired. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kippax Centre

Kippax Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A run of the mill local shopping centre, without any notability. Also, the article is completely unsourced. (Note: The article was proposed for deletion by MB in March 2020, and the proposal was contested by The Drover's Wife.) JBW (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The PROD was disputed with the rationale that Kippax Centre is a populated place, not just the Kippax Fair shopping centre. The Canberra Times calls Kippax Centre a "precinct." Other sources call it a "designated group centre" of Canberra that includes the shopping centre.[1] Not familiar enough with Australian geography to judge. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuka and Dickson Centre are also "designated group centres" and could be characterised as precincts. Manuka definitely has an historical importance in addition to being a shopping centre (and has a famous sports ground and a designated cathedral), Dickson somewhat less so and Kippax Centre less so again.--Grahame (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I cannot see how being a "designated group centre" is important given that essentially all the GHits for the phrase (and there aren't many) are statements that one of a small number of places are so designated. In particular I don't get a definition for it, so I'm hard-pressed to see how it matters. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pontificalibus (or if not, Merge) - given that alternatives to deletion must be considered first, an obvious outcome if there is no consensus to keep is a merge to Holt, Australian Capital Territory. There seem to be quite a few media articles on the shopping centre just from doing a simple Google search (let alone any book or other media which almost certainly exists on local ACT history that would presumably cover it) this probably does meet GNG, but even if it doesn't in its own right there is clearly no valid reason for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do Not Merge or Redirect The article is about a shopping center. The hurdle is WP:NBUILD I do not see anything in the article, nor does a search find anything that meets that. Arguments about "populated places" must pass WP:GEOLAND and I don't see anything that passes that. Jeepday (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Jeepday:, none of your arguments show that merging or redirection is not an inappropriate alternative. There are Google hits that at least mean it is worth a mention in the suburb article (given that Kippax Centre, like Manuka and Dickson Centre, are localities in their own right within Canberra) - and that's without searching for offline sources, of which there must be at least some that cover this particular area's history as part of the history of suburban Canberra, and alternatives MUST be considered before deletion. A merge or redirect is entirely appropriate here, and will avoid the work done on the article just being wasted. Deus et lex (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there is nothing in WP:ATD-M that says anything MUST be merged. If you want to try and add it to the article you are welcome to, but trying to get an AFD ruling that it must be merged is without grounds. Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - you don't understand and you need to learn the rules of AfD - you can only consider delete when merge and redirect are inappropriate. If you can't justify why a merge or redirect is inappropriate then it shouldn't get deleted. There is a clear merge here - the claim it is "without grounds" is rubbish. Deus et lex (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG with [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. etc ----Pontificalibus 13:54, 12 February 2021 (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.