Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Centre Batemans Bay (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Village Centre Batemans Bay
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  for deletion/Stockland Batemans Bay Stats )

fails WP:ORG. Last AfD was 7years ago and we've come a long way in notability consensus. Nothing in gnews for its current or former name. It's a small one storey shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the last AfD under a different name Articles for deletion/Stockland Batemans Bay. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Covered in third party sources, and I've added to the article since nomination. Notable regional shopping centre, even if the article as exists is a little light . -- Whats new?(talk) 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The normal level for keeping a shopping center is 1 million sq ft = 100,000 sq metres. This has 13,000 sqm, which is way under the laevel. The references are trivial and do not show notability . that's what one would expect.  DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and this in fact could be closed as Delete hence why I'm now commenting, because the Keep vote suggesting sourcing exists and is therefore unacceptable is not the same and convincing thing as actual substance and acceptance; none what's listed is anything convincing and in fact is instead something suitable for their own website, not a substance-needing encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  23:04, 19 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.