Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caulfield Plaza Shopping Centre

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 redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria#Shopping. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caulfield Plaza Shopping Centre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Caulfield Plaza Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General failing of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A shopping centre with only a few stores is unlikely to be notable unless there is sufficient independent sources validating this, which can't be found. Article is also promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While, ATD options exist, this article is part of a larger mess, and unilateral WP:BOLD actions may be inappropriate. A newbie editor has mass created several mall articles, with a list of red links suggesting many more to come. At least 5 other articles are already at AfD, with multiple contested ProDs and at least one outstanding ProD. I left a message on the creator's talk page asking them to at least slow down. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the original creator don't worry I've stopped with the mall articles! In relation to homeco, I'm currently in the process of creating an article for the actual company and not individual centres, based off of community feedback HoHo3143 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of the shopping centre in the article you have suggested as redirect target. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't have to be a mention in the redirect target article. An article on the suburb can validly have content relating to the shopping centres there where the centre is not notable. I don't understand why this is such a problem? Deus et lex (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there needs to be mention in the target article. What use is there to a would-be searcher taking them to an article which doesn't even mention the thing that they searched for. I make no comment on whether such a mention would be appropriate or justified but without a merge or a brief mention then redirection is not appropriate. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention can be done later (or in fact, you could easily do it yourself...). A redirection to the suburb article is entirely appropriate - it is a valid alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is a WP:run-of-the-mill mini mall. With zero RS coverage apparent, it too unremarkable to be a plausible search term. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you haven't shown that the redirect is not inappropriate. The suburb name is an entirely reasonable redirect and the shopping centre could well be a search term. The incessant "run of the mill" quotes every time someone puts up a shopping centre article for AfD is nauseating and no one ever considers alternatives. I don't understand why it is such a big issue to think before just arguing delete. Deus et lex (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deus et lex: A mini mall with only the most routine directory and transport interest meets the definition of unremarkable. There is nothing to support the term as a significant feature of the proposed target to make it plausible for a Wikipedia search. The article is commercial fluff, and deletion is the cleaner option. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is already content at the proposed redirect target. I am not supportive of keeping the article but Wikipedia has policies that alternatives to deletion must be explored. In this case it has not occurred so redirection is entirely appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I though this is somewhat notable because of its owner- that being Monash University HoHo3143 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose redirection to Caulfield, Victoria unless mention is added there. No benefit to anyone searching this without content being added. No comment on deletion. A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "no benefit to anyone" is not a reason for opposing the redirect. You need to show that it's inappropriate. A person typing in the name of the shopping centre can easily be redirected to the suburb. It makes sense and you haven't shown it is not appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing to show. It is self-evidently inappropriate to redirect something to an article which neither mentions nor discusses that thing. The reasons for a redirect can be found at WP:RPURPOSE, if none of them are met then the burden would be on you to say why it is appropriate (or to point to which purpose is being met in this instance). The reason it is of no benefit (and indeed is actively unhelpful) is because someone searching this will not find any information about what they are looking for. I don't know what you mean by "A person typing in the name of the shopping centre can easily be redirected to the suburb", or how that is relevant. That is all moot if information is added to the target (and the information is appropriate there but I offer no opinion on whether or not this is the case), but this should not be redirected before that happens. As to your comment above about me doing it, I am not the one advocating for redirection. I don't care either way if the content is added to the other article, only that we don't create redirects to inappropriate targets. A7V2 (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is content there now so all of your points are moot anyway. The redirect is now entirely appropriate and should be made. Deus et lex (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Literally not one of my comments are moot as I prefaced with unless, nor is there content "there", but at Caulfield East, Victoria. Also ideally you shouldn't be changing your comments after people have replied without leaving the old part struck for context, per WP:TALK#REVISE. A7V2 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria. Centre has some notability to the suburb, however I now agree that it isn't worth its own Wikipedia page. HoHo3143 (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in my main comment above I indicated it should be redirected to Caulfield - it should actually be Caulfield East (where there is content) and I have changed my comment above to reflect that. Deus et lex (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria#Shopping as the centre is notable in the local community, however the section needs to be expanded upon. HoHo3143 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect to Caulfield East, Victoria#Shopping where some content from this article was merged. Note that an edit summary mentioning that content was merged should be made for attribution purposes. A7V2 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On consideration, no such edit summary is necessary as the same user wrote all of the content of this article. A7V2 (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bohnbeamer: (who reopened the AfD). You should be aware that the AfD was created by me, and legitimately withdrawn. The outcome is leading to a redirect, and was supported by the article's author. You also have five edits to your name, which I find very suspicious. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: (who closed the AfD against the closure instructions), WP:CLOSEAFD states a nominator can withdraw an AfD, but only
it all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit any ongoing discussion
As votes other than Keep had been cast, withdrawing the nomination was no longer a legitimate option. The only way it can now be closed is by an uninvolved editor. Would have thought somebody who has an extensive involvement in AfDs would be more familiar with the rules. Bohnbeamer (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could still withdraw the AfD and then redirect the article. There's practically no difference. All the responses are leading for the article to be redirected. Perhaps you might like to contribute to this discussion yourself as it it clear to me that don't favour this outcome. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2022 (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/Caulfield_Plaza_Shopping_Centre&oldid=1113169117"