Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkmore Shopping Centre

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkmore Shopping Centre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets WP:ORG. Google news comes up with routine news like a robbery occurring but nothing indepth. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nomination. Closest I could find to WP:SIGCOV was this however it appears to be paid marketing. Everything else that came up for me had to do with incidents or events which were at the shopping centre, however the articles themselves appear not to be about the shopping centre. This doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible this does pass our notability guidelines. This local government business news I'm not sure would count, but it does show the centre was notable enough when it opened to receive press which would count towards WP:GNG. A historical source search will be needed. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially notable in 1973 because there was a party and John Farnham performed there doesn't demonstrate that there are verifiable secondary sources which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that web search at the moment, though. Simple WP:BEFORE searches have gotten a lot harder - a search only brings up references to help you get there and to stores which are located there, but the local government source definitively shows that there was plenty of coverage when this centre opened, and shopping centres of this size have been kept in the past. A proper WP:BEFORE will include historical newspaper articles in a way a web search cannot. SportingFlyer T·C 23:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The local government source only indicates that there was "local newspapers" covering the opening. That gives us entirely no indication about how many, whether the publications are/were reliable and whether there was significant coverage in them. I do agree that WP:BEFORE searches have gotten harder which has made me not nominate some things that I might have, but I don't think we can imagine SIGCOV when that is not verified. TarnishedPath^talk 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.