Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werribee Plaza


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Article has no third party sources, required per policy at WP:V. Claims of notability have been made in the discussion, but no sources have been forthcoming. Hiding Talk 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Werribee Plaza
OK; its a shopping centre - so? NN BlueValour 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough. Unless it has some special significance that I don't know about, this isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. --BennyD 05:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- seems to be obvious spam. Pascal.Tesson 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment doesnt seem to be spam, considering the owners of the mall had anything to do with it, however I'll agree doesnt seem to assert notability. --Arnzy (whats up?)  08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It sounds like a really big shopping center and a Melbourne landmark. I don't think the spam label is correct, since there is no evidence that the mall's owner had anything to do with the article. TruthbringerToronto 05:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentIs there something in the linked pages that gave you the impression that it was a landmark or really big?  Kuru  talk  22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no evidence given whatsoever that this is a particularly big shopping center, nor is there any sign that it is considered a landmark of any sort. I don't think Wikipedia's credibility can survive the creation of an article for every large shopping center in every suburb of every large city in the world. Pascal.Tesson 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 07:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion of notability and I can't find any. I don't know where the points above about "sounds like a really big shopping center" come from. From its website and everything I've read it's your common or garden shopping center with nothing to distinguish it from any other. It has exactly the same generic list of retailers too. - Motor (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No Vote, there are many of these on the site. I'm not entirely sure why someone would need to look up a shopping centre on an encyclopedia, but deleting this one would require people to go on a crusade to delete all the rest of 'em, too. --TrianaC 11:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I understand your point but we have to start somewhere and get standards and precedents. I'll be more than happy to spend some time looking for these articles and nominating them for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep we have to start somewhere?! THe idea of going on a deletion crusade does not add to WP at all. It actually detracts, because instead of improving, you simply delete problems. Please show where it was decided that shopping centres are not distinct building s and structure landmarks in their locality. --Shuki 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Shopping centres certainly can be notable, particularly if they are the largest in the region or architecturally notable. However, this one does not fit either category. The line has to be drawn somewhere or else every shopping arcade in the world could be included. You voted 'Keep' - what was it about /this/ arcade that you thought was sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in a serious encyclopaedia? BlueValour 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The idea that deletion is counterproductive to WP is not sound. Keeping a minimum filter of notability will improve WP's reputation in the long run. I agree that poor articles should be improved not deleted but in this instance there is simply no avenue for constructive improvements. Pascal.Tesson 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable.  --Roisterer 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, article make no notability claims; even weak ones. An article like Chadstone Shopping Centre (another mall in the same city), would suffice.  This one looks like just another mall, and not even the cited website claims otherwise.  Kuru  talk  22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete take it from a melbournian, Werribee Plaza isn't notable, Chadstone is (see Kuru's comment above). Viridae 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Bwithh 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs expansion. --JJay 01:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Expansion? Why? Please look again at the comments of Kuru and Viridae and explain what notability they missed. BlueValour 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment but notability is not part of my thinking. This is a mall. Needs expansion--JJay 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is what this AfD is being argued on, to argue for keep you need to indicate why you think it is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Viridae 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. I don't need to argue about anything. Perhaps you need to reread my comment: notability is not part of my thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJay (talk • contribs)
 * He didn't ask you to argue, he asked what you were thinking. Perhaps it's just your usual confusion of Wikipedia with the local Yellow Pages, then. --Calton | Talk 05:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)--Calton | Talk 05:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded to this quote (emphasis added): Notability is what this AfD is being argued on, to argue for keep you need to indicate why you think it is notable enough to be included in wikipedia.. I am not "confused" and I would ask you, again, to cease the personal attacks when commenting on AfD. --JJay 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that in 'you need to argue' the need the poster referred to was the need to help others in the discussion understand your argument; allowing them to either agree or give some(any) weight to it. Whilst you are certainly not under any obligation to provide explaination, not giving it will not help your aim of keeping this article at the close of this discussion. Inner Earth 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - been there and it's not notable--Peripitus (Talk) 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 19 references to this in an Australia New Zealand media database. However, this place is only mentioned in passing in those references and is only a one-line substub once the tenants are removed. However, it is worth mentioning so I suggest a merge with Werribee, Victoria would be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Rebecca (who just passed this on her way home an hour or two ago) 09:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what exactly makes it notable? (apart from you passing it) Viridae 11:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see "company is driven by by some wikipedian" in the WP:CORP criteria. Pascal.Tesson 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I think she is pointing out the building's "staturesque notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete no claim to notability stated or implied. Nor is its existence disputed.  Tychocat 11:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Maurice Alter's (as owner & one of Australia's richest men) article, "WP" is only notable as part of his property portfolio, Delete mention of tenants, because all shopping centres have tenants. Librarianofages 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this (and most other mall articles as well). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a shopping centre in the 'burbs, with a bunch of chain stores. And unless someone is suggesting that Wikipedia is trying to take on the remit of the telephone directory, that's not even CLOSE enough for an article. --Calton | Talk 05:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence, or assertion, of notability given. Inner Earth 10:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable Melbourne shopping centre. Focal point for local community. Cnwb 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you prove its notability under wikipedia guidelines? What makes it so notable that it should be included and thousands of other shopping centres should be excluded? Viridae 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is room for development with this article- it is not spam and keeps information about Geelong, Melbourne and surrounds up. themit 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I see on your talk page that you live in Geelong so it would be very nice if you could actually expand on your vote. You say that there is room for development of the article but I would greatly appreciate if you can say more about potential ways to include valuable encyclopedic info about this shopping mall. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a major landmark for the local community in Geelong and Surrounds as well as Melbourne and so on. I can understand the points that you make about it perhaps not making the books elsewhere. However, as a Geelong Wikipedian I believe that it is notable and with more expansion this could become a quality article. Thanks for your comments- they have been taken onboard. themit 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment Fair enough but if the Weribee Plaza is so important and is indeed a "major landmark", would it not appear more prominently on the websites whose sole function is to promote the city of Weribee (Weribee Plaza is indeed mentioned in the shopping section but only in passing) or the Geelong region  (no mention of the plaza)? I believe that you should try and explain how the WP:CORP guidelines are met in this instance or how the content of the article could be made of encyclopedic value which, I believe most would agree, it currently is not. Pascal.Tesson 17:18, 29 June 2006 (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.