Deletion of Greensborough Plaza (2nd nomination)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: as subject serves a large geographical area, article asserts notability, notability is proven by references in reliable secondary sources, and the arguments for deletion add up to little more than . Consensus ''can'' change but it clearly appears that it has not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: One of the best-written and referenced shopping centre articles I've seen. If the nominator considers the references unreliable or trivial, then I beg to differ. Declaring a subject non-notable in spite of multiple references seems to be a subjective application of notability somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's |primary notability criterion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Well referenced, well set out. This is the standard of article we keep here. Should never have made it to AfD. Survives 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)