Deletion of Karrinyup Shopping Centre

Comment: Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here, no references affirming notability per . Right now this article seems little more than spam. Delete, or merge into article about parent community
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: From what is in the article at this time, I would class this as within the bounds of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per  - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in Perth, Western Australia|Perth, down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a  case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Meets . The question we are asking here is, is the subject notable? The answer is yes, a 54,000 sqm shopping centre in a city as isolated as Perth is clearly so. Only two comparable shopping centres exist in the region in consideration. Never mind that the article is clearly a stub - that is an issue for cleanup, and obviously something that would have been looked at given time. Editors are not only usually busy people but also volunteers and work on a range of article types, and by far the majority of articles on Wikipedia are at present stubs, so demanding they be developed at the sole discretion of another editor at the other side of the world is somewhat disingenuous. , Wikipedia's deletion policy, expressly states: "''If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.''" I am concerned that this AfD (which started off as a proposed deletion!) and some of the comments above are an example of rampant meta:Deletionism|Deletionism which has become the norm in recent times. I note that it is presently 12:36am in Perth, so most likely editors who actually are familiar with the subject, or with shopping centres in Australia more broadly, are unlikely to comment for some hours
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DEL)

Comment: Article as it exists is just a directory listing. Does not appear to meet  for notability. If this is "a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city" as claimed above, then surely the people creating the article can find nontrivial third party news sources that say something notable about it. If they can't or won't, then there's no point to have it here. There's a slight argument to be made for the whole Wiki is not paper thing, but the bottom line is that there has to be some reason to have something, and there just isn't any that I can see for this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability.'' Yes, the references tag is there for that reason (added after you attempted to prod the article). I'm on the phone right this moment to a friend with Factiva access, and we have 387 articles in front of us, from which we have so far found at least 20 significant references which pass both the  and  tests, and provide a reasonable history of the article. This includes local and national papers of record, reports on the attendance of significant international musicians for events, international journals relevant to the subject matter, and even comments made to the media by significant members of the the state's legislative bodies. Am I the only one who can (after we get the time to perform a significant rewrite of the article which has been on a project to do list for a while) see a Snowball keep in our future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: As the article currently exists, adequate reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. However, the arrogance and rudeness of the article's primary author in responding to this AfD are rather disturbing, including the accusation that the nominator had created this AfD in violation of , particularly given the fact that the article was completely sourceless and consisted almost exclusively of a list of stores when the AfD was opened. I think a very important general rule was stated here by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)