Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulleen Plaza


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulleen Plaza

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Local shopping centre with no assertion of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails precedents of notability for shopping centers, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * delete clearly fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to satisfy our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper" for "Bulleen Plaza" has 262 results. They include:
 * A celebration of diversity, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - June 23, 2010, Length: 83 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
 * Age caution - after seven- - car pile-up, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - April 7, 2010, Length: 279 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)
 * No move for extra - trader parking, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - August 26, 2009, Length: 137 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
 * Police probe - road death, Leader - Heidelberger (Melbourne, Australia) - August 12, 2009, Length: 117 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
 * No ticket to ride, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - July 1, 2009, Length: 210 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
 * Trouble ahead for retailers, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - January 21, 2009, Length: 273 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
 * Bonus prize for Plaza shopping, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - November 12, 2008, Length: 78 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
 * --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Have you read these articles?  If so, which ones contain substantial coverage of the shopping center?  Also, which of these sources don't fall into the following category -- the 'local' clause of WP:CORPDEPTH -- "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability".--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've read a few of them.  They talk about things that took place at the mall like events, car accidents, police incidents, etc.  Some of the other articles talk about merchants in the mall.  In my opinion, the scope of coverage by these articles means it should pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't believe that we consider a mall notable because an event took place at it -- that is run-of-the-mill mall life.  Or that a car accident took place at it -- it might be more notable if the mall never had a car accident.  Or a police incident; same.  I think that sort of coverage, which is also not quite about the mall, would among other things fall into the trivial, passing mention category.  IMHO.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted in light of new sources presented near the expiry of this thread to allow for further discussion.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't use the Monash U. database; but the articles cited by LauraHale don't appear to show show any in-depth coverage.  Under the "No inherited notability" section of WP:CORP, they wouldn't provide justification for keeping the article.  My own Google search failed to turn up any coverage substantial enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.  Ammodramus (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.