Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livingston Marketplace


 * 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 Canning Vale, Western Australia. Clear consensus that the topic isn't notable, but redirects are cheap and no one has given a reason not to redirect. As Mkativerata notes, if anyone wishes to they can merge anything by looking through the article history. Jenks24 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Livingston Marketplace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Natg 19 (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read the TP of the stub before deletion. I believe there may be two distinct articles to (one of) which we could redirect this. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looks to be 15,000 square meters, far below what we commonly view as notable when it comes to malls. The consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep repeating things where it has been explained to you that what you say is incorrect? Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Canning Vale, Western Australia. This should be done by redirecting the article but retaining the history for the merger of any relevant content. Unless I'm looking in the wrong places, I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources justifying a stand-alone article for this small retail centre. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * weak Delete the events surrounding Dante Arthurs do contribute to a level of notability, I'd also dispute that footprint of 5,000sqm as the centres actually footprint is considerably larger at 3 to 5 times its floor space, its the largest single feature of the area and totally unrelated to the area where the average property footprint is just 500-700 sqm. I will note that the closing admin should delete the photo as it fails the requirements WP:FU as its realistically possible a free licensed photo could be readily obtained. Its on the cusp of being notable but at the moment its not there and there isnt any forward planning I can find that may tip it over the line in the near future. Gnangarra 13:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a sufficient level of notability (I wish I could unread the Arthur's stuff). Given that an insufficient level of notability is established I suggest deletion as per any other small mall. AlanS (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2014 (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.