Pacific Square – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that the close was within admin discretion. However, there is no prejudice to a rewritten article with new and better sources. If someone would like the original userfied or moved to the incubator, just ask. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I feel the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Other than the Nom, only 1 person voted Delete, and their reasoning proved faulty (lack of Reliable in depth secondary sources, of which one was shown). Discussion with the Closer amounts to "It's not my place to agree or disagree. The consensus was that the coverage was insufficient". A rational of "no evidence has been provided that it might have sufficient coverage to satisfy notability requirements" is simply wrong. [1] proves that. It should have been relisted at the very least when, even the closer noted, a distinct lack of !votes on the matter was presented. 2 surely cannot be deemed 'consensus'. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del08:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as the requirement is for sources, providing a single one doesn't answer the concern. There is no quorum in AFD. I have some sympathy that this could have been relisted, but on the discussion in the xFD and what's been presented here so far, I find it hard to believe it would survive for long. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I endorse the result of the AfD for the reasons already stated, I would also like to point out that we do have a source. This means a potential alternative outcome that would comply with our rules would be to smerge some of the deleted article's content to Maroubra, New South Wales. Depending on who contributed to the original article this might require a history merge, so the correct procedure would be to ask HJ Mitchell for a userfied copy of the deleted material, perform the smerge and then if the history merge is necessary follow the instructions at WP:HISTMERGE.—S MarshallT/C11:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC or relist One very solid source and a few less than great (but reliable etc. even if just dealing with a fire) may or may not meet WP:N. However there is no consensus that they do not meet WP:N. Given the low attendance at the AfD, it should either have been a relist or no consensus as there was no bright line crossed on notability (i.e. neither no sources nor tons of sources). Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I find it extremely unlikely that local news sources didn't cover its construction. That would be unheard of in the states--local news always covers major construction. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per 82.19.4.7. This really was within admin discretion and for a run-of-the-mill local shopping centre hardly a surprising result. But I'd support restoring the article under a redirect to Maroubra, New South Wales where relevant content can be merged. When the sourcing is so thin, coverage in the article about the local suburb is a much more sensible approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the Content of the Article as run-of-the-mill is biased and not what we are talking about. "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question" ( WP:DELREVD ). The closing admin placed to much weight in non policy arguments (and possibly their own opinion) in the closing as Delete. All the policy based Arguments were (IMO) solidly disproven. Weight of a 3 site WP:Google test have no weight at all and should have been discounted. How does that equal a Delete? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) PS one of the GTests was based upon a faulty db search engine, The Southern-courier (a subsidiary of news.com.au) shows results [2]Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del02:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only non-policy argument I can see, looking over the AfD again, is your suggestion that by not being just a shopping centre it's sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I have no opinion on the subject whatsoever, and, despite your attempts to suggest I was acting improperly by disagreeing with you, I closed the AfD in line with the consensus as I saw it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree'd thoes hits are not suitable for a Cite, but the fact that they are there, proves the worthlessness of GTests and what weight a GTest should be given. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's within admin's discretion as many editors see it so I'll just give my opinion (so I won't bold anything). AFD is not a vote count but numbers aren't meaningless. Barring BLP issues I like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nom (3 or more is optimal) before I "hard delete" anything. This may avoid challenges like this one and allows me to, with a straight face, tell someone who comes to my talk page that there was a "community discussion" and the result was delete. The AFD in question here was not a "community discussion", it was a back and forth between 2 editors. I would have relisted this if I came across it in the logs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A reasonable close, Within discretion. Fully in line with the usual closes on articles in the subject area. and I would have used my discretion the same way had I closed it--except I generally don't close in that area, having a relatively deletionist bias for shopping centers. The possibility remains to write a stronger article with more and better sources, and try again. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
