Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Airport West


 * 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 Airport_West,_Victoria. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone, the only question is delete vs redirect. Deletes win the headcount, but redirect makes sense per WP:ATD so going with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Westfield Airport West

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. gnews reveals run of the mill coverage. the centre is relatively small sized for an Australian centre. 2 of the 3 sources in the article are primary. those arguing for keep should not use the weak argument or how about other Westfields?. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Airport West, Victoria § Commerce per WP:ATD-R. After a few brief searches, not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, this is a valid search term, and the redirect target already has some content about this shopping centre. North America1000 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per LibStar. Non notable mall, and being a Westfield mall does not assume notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per User:Northamerica1000. Nothing but the usual run of the mill commercial pages coverage, and not so much detail it can't be adequately covered in the locality article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well this is awkward. The article is now (by coincidence) also being discussed a part of a class at the batch nom Articles for deletion/Westfield Innaloo (2nd nomination). Whether that discussion now supersedes this one, or vice versa, or something else... I'm not sure how this should be handled. "Ignore that other discussion" would be defensible, but so so would "close this as moot and see what that other discussion decides". Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Close as moot due to this being resolved in the broader discussion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * no. That discussion has been closed as an inappropriate AfD. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've closed the bulk nomination as it was out of process. I don't see any barrier to this nomination proceeding. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. insufficient evidence of notability -- in practice the level at which we usually keep is 100,000 sq meters, and this is only half that  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 March 2017 (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.