Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kardinya Park


 * 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   redirect to Kardinya, Western Australia. No actual reliable sources provided--merely the assertion that reliable sources probably exist; other editors also rebutted some of the specific claims to reliability. Should multiple sources discussing the mall be found later, the article can always be recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kardinya Park

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an unremarkable local mall with no evidence of notability. An accurate search in Gnews archives proves this. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kardinya, Western Australia is the proper approach in such cases. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kardinya, Western Australia already discusses the shopping mall, so I don't think there is really anything to merge. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and/or redirect to Kardinya, Western Australia. (I'm aware that the article has nothing currently worth merging, but commonly AfD's cause content/links to get added to the article that may be worth merging.) Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I conducted a Google search for ("kardinya park") and went through the first 200 hits.  None of these suggested anything but incidental coverage: this happened at KP, that store opened at KP, the other store closed at KP.  A Google News search produced three hits, all of which were "The winning ticket was bought at KP".  I'm persuaded that there's no in-depth coverage by third-party sources, and that this therefore fails WP:ORG.  Ammodramus (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: 155 mentions of the mall on Newsbank, including references in the following:
 * Melville Times (Perth, Australia) (142)
 * Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette (Perth, Australia) (7)
 * Southern Gazette (Perth, Australia) (2)
 * Age, The/The Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) (1)
 * Canning Times (Perth, Australia) (1)
 * Stirling Times (Perth, Australia) (1)
 * Northern Territory News/Sunday Territorian/NT Business Review (Australia) (1)
 * At least one of these articles is completely about the mall: More traffic, new entrance, Melville Times (Perth, Australia) - Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Edition: 1, Page: 005. When looking more at these sources, another one is primarily about this mall: Centre bottle shop gets nod, Melville Times (Perth, Australia) - Tuesday, December 15, 2009, Edition: 1, Page: 007.  Given the issue of many sources being offline, these prove to me offline verifiable sources that can be used to prove WP:GNG likely exist. --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See the vote immediately above yours. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per LauraHale's search results, I'm not to sure why people rely on Google for sources when Google doesn't scan offline sources (therefore it will never show on a Google search). Bidgee (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Info This is the mention in The Age. Not particularly useful to establish regional notability. --99of9 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your second statement is correct. And the source isn't even about the mall, it's about ATMs. Till I Go Home (talk)
 * 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.