Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand Junction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 - article has been rewritten and clearly passes criteria for notability :: maelgwn - talk 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brand Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'm inclined to think this is a notable development in the Whittlesea area. Lankiveil 12:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The website indicates some serious brands have already been signed up, and this map (based on the Melway) screams location, location, location. Definitely WP:N, searches on Factiva indicate significant current independent coverage - just the article needs to be fixed, and IMO "University Hill" should be substituted for "Bundoora" as the former is a developer name only. Orderinchaos 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in the process of improving this article - seems everywhere I look, new stuff comes up. It's even been discussed in the federal Hansard. I shall hit Factiva tomorrow and improve the current section, but it's pretty decent now. Orderinchaos 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per ors, agree with notability stance. Just needs a cleanup, which AfD is not the place for. Thewinchester (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 10-odd reliables small article - not that it matters. Seems to follow WP:SHOP quite well. Vgood article. easily passes notability. Twenty Years 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of good sources proving notability. Rebecca 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as sourced article. BTW, it would be good if the nom could explain in detail in his nomination why he thinks that the relevant article should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If I put simply "notable," deletionists would have my neck for using a WP:JNN arguement. The same standard should go for AfD nominators. Per all above, reliable sources indicate notability. --Oakshade 01:35, 29 July 2007 (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.