Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frasers Property


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Frasers Property

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possibly non-notable property development company. All information about the company itself in the article is sourced to an "Our Story" page on the company's website. There is one section on a definitely notable building the company developed (One Central Park). However, the sources provided for that section are a link to a press release by a partner development company that worked on the building, and a link to an award the building received. The award appears to be the only legitimately third party coverage provided in the article and the award is for the building, not the company (which is not mentioned in the award article). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  00:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * keep lots of coverage in gnews search including in mainstream Australian press. meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see their name a lot, but what specific sources were you thinking of that contain any WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * sure:, , , , , . LibStar (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * it seems some of the above articles are subscription only but I could view them via gnews search. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * urbandeveloper piece reads like a reprinted press release, others are corporate ownership coverage ... do the News Corp sources talk about the company in terms other than who owns which bits of what? -David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * some of them talk about the company itself eg its plans for expansion and ownership structure rather than sites they're developing. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * good, good ... they're a huge company, the sort of thing you'd expect to have been talked about - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination. The only notability is inherited from (One Central Park), which has it's own article. Wayne 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be a mjor copany, and one central park just the most recent of their properties. Needs expansion. (that al lthe refs given come from that building is just a matter of the article being incomplete.)  DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Relies heavily on primary sources as written, but subject appears notable. Tag article with a need for better citations. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BARE. It appears to be notable, based on what it built, but I'd prefer better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (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.