Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadway on the Mall

Add links
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. Consensus pointing to LauraHale's comments that this satisfies the general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway on the Mall[edit]

Broadway on the Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability for this mall. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It passes GNG based on the following list of sources:
    Interstate fund managers swoop on CBD icons, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - May 27, 2011, Length: 389 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)
    CBD's empty retail spaces filling fast, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - January 6, 2012, Length: 349 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)
    Shopgirl with Reshni Ratnam, Brisbane City News (Australia) - August 4, 2011, Length: 347 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)
    WHERE IS Y?, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - December 17, 2011, Length: 154 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
    Year of uncertainty looms over property, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - December 16, 2011, Length: 794 words (Estimated printed pages: 3)
    Tired Corner shapes up as an inner-city hotspot, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - November 18, 2011, Length: 481 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)
    Show of STRENGTH, Brisbane News (Australia) - October 19, 2011, Length: 115 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
    Big interest in Nerang Mall, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - October 14, 2011, Length: 161 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
    STYLE COUNSEL, QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) - August 27, 2011,Length: 279 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)
A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper" for "Broadway on the Mall" in quotes pulls up over 800 unique results, with extensive coverage in a number of articles. I can provide a more comprehensive list if required.--LauraHale (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all local news. All malls have local news coverage. What makes this notable? SL93 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
urm, that is the best you're going to get! What do you want? A sources from overseas? If so, you're not going to get them. Maybe the same should happen to the other mall articles? Bidgee (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said overseas. How about outside of Brisbane? SL93 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get snappy with other editors. And FYI, local news is not grounds for notability. Taken directly from WP:ORG: attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brisbane is the third biggest city in Australia. One of the newspapers cited there are the biggest newspaper in the city, and it can be picked up in cities around the country. (I can find it in several shops in Canberra.) Easily appears to pass WP:GNG based on the criteria listed on WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Brisbane is the third most populous city in Australia. "Largest" is ambiguous and subject to debate. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has the third most populous city in Australia. If it makes you feel better to have it worded more clearly, then awesome. The largest newspaper in the third most populous city in the country is pretty much a national newspaper in the context that most major newsagents around the country will carry it. It should not be considered purely local. The coverage is still substantial and pretty overwhelming. We're not talking 5 or 10. We're talking over 880 mentions, some of which talk about the mall extensively because of the Queensland flooding that forced it to briefly closed and a host of other reasons.--LauraHale (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Events (such as floods) which take place at malls do not make the malls notable. That is considered a trivial mention, and the GNG requires more than a trivial mention (see WP:SIGCOV). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be nominating everything in Category:Shopping_malls_in_Iowa, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Guam and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Idaho for deletion soon right? They almost ALL rely on local sources. And you are correct. One flood does not make them notable. Significant coverage of them in multiple sources that covers them extensively does. The sources do cover the mall for several different events and talk about the mall on their own. The coverage is extensive with over 800 different sources. --LauraHale (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as I live in Australia I mostly nominate Australian shopping centres for deletion. Just because there are over 800 different sources does not mean that it is significant coverage. While not a guideline itself, WP:NPLACE states that "larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls and individual shops are generally deleted". Till I Go Home (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per articles by LauraHale, this easily passes GNG. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LauraHale which shows that it meets WP:GNG. The article needs work but it doesn't need to be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Dan arndt (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non notable shopping mall. The editors above are simply linking to the GNG and saying that the mall meets this guideline, although that isn't true. The GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in which the sources above are merely local coverage, and local coverage does not establish notability. I found nothing of significance in multiple, reliable sources. [1]. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times sources to denote notability for anything in Chicago? What about the New York Times? Would the NYT be an acceptable source for helping to establish notability in New York? --LauraHale (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to all of those is no. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your arguments are the most convincing for a delete result. You have essentially recounted everything that I said regarding trivial mentions, by using the word 'mentioned'. These articles are doing just that, mentioning, with no in-depth coverage of the mall. Again, these links you have provided are trivial, (i.e. they report on floods which took place there, fashion retail etc.) and they have nothing to do with the actual mall itself (eg. when it was built, refurbishments, anniversaries etc.) Till I Go Home (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While it is true that the article does need extensive work done on it, Broadway on the Mall (which is situated between Adelaide Street and Queen Street Mall), is an important shopping centre in Brisbane. Figaro (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being "an important shopping centre in Brisbane" is not a reason for keeping an article. Significant coverage in reliable sources, however, is a valid reason for keeping an article, in which case Broadway does not have. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 800 different secondary sources are enough for me to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by LauraHale. Some of the arguments to delete being made here are laughably feeble. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:12, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Broadway_on_the_Mall&oldid=1069232542"