Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erindale 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   keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Erindale Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in reliable sources. It does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Till 12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect Would be fine with either option. Canuck 89 (talk to me)  12:58, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a fairly significant shopping centre going over several blocks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ? To be eligible for inclusion, the mall must have significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources which I couldn't find. Don't think going over several blocks qualifies for notability. Till 13:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination seems to think this is a mall. It is in fact a whole geographical precinct.  It includes a mall, but also clubs, a major sports centre and school, petrol station, medical centre, and several more blocks of shops. So it should be kept on the basis of other geographic regions, the gazetteer part of what Wikipedia is. I have seen several newspaper stories on the topic, but not handy at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether a mall, entertainment centre, etc, per WP:GNG it can only be notable if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Till 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unable to find any decent 3rd party references. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doctorhawkes, did you look ? How about the area's government master plan, the book Erindale Centre Development Plan: Proposed Retail Development by National Capital Development Commission (isbn: 0642885915), the book Erindale Centre also by the National Capital Development Commission where the proposal for the area was discussed, the various discussions in the ACT parliament that are recorded in Hansard, the "National Capital Development Commission"'s annual reports, the various news reports about the place, the discussions I can see in academic sources of the community library...and I am sure with another minute or so work more could be found. And this is just online. It is a significant geographical area that has been widely written about and discussed. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This a sizable shopping, education and medical services district (basically a specialised sub-suburb) of Canberra which has received very considerable media coverage over the 30-odd years its existed, and the ACT Government is planning to build it up over the next decade. I'd suggest that the nominator view the Google maps imagery of this area - all the buildings with white roofs are Erindale. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you show evidence that would indicate there is "considerable media coverage"? Cause I can't. As a keep voter you should provide evidence to back up your argument, I don't think a claim that it got coverage for 30 years does the job. Should sources be found that meet GNG, I will withdraw this nomination. Till 08:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, searching for "Erindale Centre" in the Factivia database's record of stories from the Canberra Times returns 73 stories since 1997, of which about a third would be of some potential use to developing the article. Searching for just "Erindale" in the Canberra Times gets you 2,980 mentions in stories since 1997; even if only 10% of these contain some potentially useful content (and from skimming the results of the search that's probably about right) that's 298 references. If anyone had the patience and motivation to go through hard copy archives of pre-1997 editions of the Canberra Times it would be expected that they'd find a roughly similar number of stories again. You need to bear in mind that the Canberra Times had a very limited website until late last year, so you need to consult databases to find much media coverage. In addition, searching for "Erindale Centre" in the National Library of Australia's online catalog also returns several government reports and plans for the centre's development which would obviously be of considerable use in developing the article:, , , . Searching for 'Erindale' in the collections of the ACT Herritage Library's catalog returns 15 government reports and yearbooks from Erindale College, about half of which look to be potentially useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added 10 newspaper references to the article to show notability. There are also heaps of sports stories, some crime reports and some advertorials. These are from ProQuest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has been expanded, with references, it now appears to meet the WP:GNG. However, as there are two other delete votes, it's probably best if we let the discussion run its course by getting closed after the normal period of 7 days. Till 12:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were going to withdraw the nomination if it could be demonstrated that the GNG was met. Why waste editors' time on this? Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I was so caught up in replying to others that I forgot there were delete votes. Obviously, closing this early isn't my decision, and anyone independent of the discussion can close it if they want to. Till 03:33, 23 June 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.