Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockland Traralgon (3rd 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Traralgon[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. at the last AfD the keep !votes were hardly convincing. there is nothing to suggest this is more than a run of the mill shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my vote in the previous AfD. WP:GNG. Just another run of the mill shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the sources mentioned in the first nomination by LauraHale.--Snaevar (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is going to keep going round and round in circles. If there are sources that establish notability, add them, if not don't bother keeping the articles. Ajf773 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and I wouldn't count reports of assaults as adding to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of sources is provided at the first AfD. Further sources were identified at the "Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper." That may be the same offline newspaper mentioned in that AfD as "Latrobe Valley Express". Unscintillating (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As yet, still no sources have been added to the article to establish any sort notability. Ajf773 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't defined by sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources verify notability (which is still questionable). Ajf773 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability doesn't require online sources, they just have to be publicly available. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources provided in the first AFD were not even verified. In fact only two of them are online sources and neither of which mention anything other than trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. What you are calling a "trivial mention", Laura Hale says, "The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s.." which is significant information she then uses to show that this was before the internet age.

Lot's of shopping malls existed in the 1980s. Not exactly a claim to fame. Ajf773 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already shown that you mispoke about what constitutes a trivial mention. I did this by comparing one of your statements with one of those by Laura Hale. Your explanation here is of the form that anything that is not a claim to fame is a trivial mention. The lede of WP:Notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." And GNG discusses "trivial" without mentioning claims to fame. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between listing the sources at the AfD and listing them in the article? If offline, they would be just as inaccessible, and equally verifiable. Some of those look like they should be available online. The citations themselves serve as evidence, which is formally what WP:N requires. You've got a testimony of reading sources at the Morwell library, "...I visited Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper." Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And? Just the fact that is mentioned in a citation makes it notable, somehow? Try harder. There is more to sources than trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for evidence, the WP:N lede states, "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the emphasis on the word "consider". A bunch of sources doesn't mean jack unless it clearly demonstrates a notable claim which I fail to see. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia doesn't use a "notable claim" as a metric...I've already quoted from the guideline on that point. We as a community figured out long ago that the opinions of individual editors could not be used as a metric. Unscintillating (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discovery and evaluation of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill shopping mall ... a building isn't notable just because it has both a Coles and a Kmart in it. Appears to be routine coverage only. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cites identified as mentioned, just need to be actioned. Eonfm (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

— Eonfm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.