Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagga Wagga Marketplace

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wagga Wagga Marketplace

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

Non-notable shopping mall, with no evidence of notability other than its mere existence. I did a search on the major Australian news websites, nothing of which would establish notability. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Till I Go Home (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources to help meet WP:GNG most likely exist, but finding them is PITA because the location is known, like many similar shopping centres in regional Australia as "The Marketplace". Daily Advertiser and another Daily ADvertiser article both mention The Marketplace. These sources suggest to me there is likely extensive additional coverage of the Wagga Wagga Marketplace. --LauraHale (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say that sources to pass WP:GNG "mostly likely exist" without providing proof. Now let's break those two sources down.
Daily Advertiser is a local story about a crocodile show at the mall, not real coverage as WP:ORG says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability".
Daily Advertiser article is also a local story and so would not help establish notability per above.
In conclusion, a collection of passing mentions in local sources and therefore would not demonstrate notability to meet WP:ORG. As stated in the nomination, I did my own thorough search in Google from sources like SMH, Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun (among others) which did not find any WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never rely on Google, not all sources are online and sites such as Newsbank have a limited archive (Year 2000 and later) so you're unlikely to find any newspaper sources online pre 2000 [except The Daily Advertiser since the Riverina Regional Library has an archive on mirofilm dating back to the late 1800s]. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding online sources is impossible for a subject built in the late 1990s. The only non online sources I can find are from The Daily Advertiser (please to not re-quote "WP:CORPDEPTH" for the local sources, since it isn't policy) though I do see some sources which meet WP:GNG and those are Commission probes Marketplace access. (18 July 1996, p. 7, The Daily Advertiser), Council and Woolworths call truce over complex. (25 June 1996, p. 3, The Daily Advertiser), Developemt sparks discrimination claim. (27 June 1996, p. 9, The Daily Advertiser), Legal barrage : Court fight loom over Wagga mall plans. (16 January 1996, p. 1, The Daily Advertiser), Marketplace sold. (21 June 1997, p. 1, The Daily Advertiser), On the market. (20 December 1996, p. 1;2 , The Daily Advertiser), Woolies' developer hits back at critics: review on disability access issue is released. (3 July 1996, p. 3, The Daily Advertiser), Woolies man slams council. (19 June 1996, p. 1, The Daily Advertiser), Woolworths development: injunction will be sought. (26 June 1996, p.3, The Daily Advertiser),. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noting carefully Bidgees comments Satu Suro 08:25, 28 January 2012 (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.