Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taigum Square Shopping 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taigum Square Shopping Centre

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

fails WP:GNG. Very little third party coverage. And at one storey and 20,000 square metres, there is considerable consensus these sized shopping centres are notable in the absence of meaningful coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small shopping centre without any significant coverage fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Taigum (which could use some content). Kerry (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. Non-notable shopping centre that fails WP:GNG. Content would not be useful in the city article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has BARELY enough reference to justify an article, and other, similar articles exist. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an unduly broad conclusion from that essay, because it ignores the idea of precedent. The page also has, barely, enough references to be notable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two of the references are from community newspapers. You know, the free ones you pick up in a barbershop that talk about the Easter Bunny being at the mall at a certain time. The only reference from a legitimate WP:RS appears to reference the shopping center being runner up at a subregional award category. That is trivial coverage at best. The last is in an advertising magazine. The sources in this article do not establish any grounds for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Tony. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no significant coverage and,at this size, none to beexpected. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 26 December 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.