Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CentralFestival Chiang Mai
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 delete. Notability not sufficiently established. -Scottywong| confess _ 15:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CentralFestival Chiang Mai[edit]
- CentralFestival Chiang Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DePRODed by creator without addressing the need for independent sources that assert notability. Concern was: Advert for the Central Mall Group. Too soon Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
- The article has only facts (official source without any ads) about shopping mall which aren't going to change much since project is secured (plan approved, land bought, under construction for months ago1). Even if it were changed we would know and update the article because the company would update the status quarterly via opportunity day2 so it is not advert but only facts.
- Too soon doesn't change the facts to advert and it only personal feeling too soon.
- It is useful for everyone. AnaTo (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this meets with our criteria for notability and inclusion at WP:ORG and WP:RS. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a primary source - we can't accept things people or companies write about themselves. You must provide totally independent, in depth, newspaper articles, or articles in the established press or a TV documentary etc. as sources that clearly establish notability for Wikipedia. It's the sources that matter - not whether a company is really important or not
Please also see the questions on your talk page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a primary source - we can't accept things people or companies write about themselves. You must provide totally independent, in depth, newspaper articles, or articles in the established press or a TV documentary etc. as sources that clearly establish notability for Wikipedia. It's the sources that matter - not whether a company is really important or not
- No one would know real specification of shopping mall because no one can really measure spaces (GLA, GFA), count stores, parking space. so for all shopping malls the WP:RS are from primary source one. the developer would not get anything if they lie about project. AnaTo (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AnaTo, primary sources can be reliable, and may be used in articles for facts such as you said, but secondary sources are also necessary in order to establish notability.
- Anyway, the subject is covered in CPN unveils plan to invest Bt13 billion from The Nation. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AnaTo, as a shareholder in the CPN Group, you have a Conflict of Interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am currently investigating the other articles you recently created including CentralFestival Hat Yai, CentralPlaza Lampang, CentralPlaza Chiang Mai Airport, CentralPlaza Phitsanulok, CentralPlaza Rattanathibet, and the dozens of edits to other Malls of the central Group, and the many delteted non-free files you uploaded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have long noted AnaTo's contributions to be neutral and verifiable, and have not yet come across one which appeared to be an advertisement inappropriate for Wikipedia. They have been valuable additions to Wikipedia's lacking coverage of major Thai business entities and corporations. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one would know real specification of shopping mall because no one can really measure spaces (GLA, GFA), count stores, parking space. so for all shopping malls the WP:RS are from primary source one. the developer would not get anything if they lie about project. AnaTo (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's just one mall, and currently only proposed - it's no more notable than all the individual Wal-Mart stores in the US, or Marks & Spencer stores in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- if you want to compare you should compare with same category shopping malls to shopping malls, discount stores to discount stores. all discount store look all the same so as you said it
wouldwouldn't have notable. but this is not. AnaTo (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nom is correct,as is AnaTo. In this instance, WP:CRYSTAL may also be relevant. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that what WP:CRYSTAL forbids is unverified speculation, which this doesn't appear to be. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Duplicating the link from my comment above, in case someone might miss it. The subject is covered in CPN unveils plan to invest Bt13 billion from The Nation; it's discussed in only three paragraphs out of fifteen though. The Bangkok Post seems to carry articles mentioning the subject, but they aren't available without a subscription. I don't see any advertising concerns in the language of the article; the only question here is of notability, which depending on discretion may or may not be regarded as established by said news coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, I never actually said that there were any clear instances of advertising, but in view of the enormous amount of creations and edits dedicated specially to articles about the Central group or its projects, and other inter-connected Thai businesses, as a self-confessed investor, it is also a clear sign of COI - a possible attempt to draw attention to something User:AnaTo may well financially benefit from. There is also the question of the dozens of deleted non-free images and new images posted to Commons that have also been deleted. Hence the notability issue is only the tip of the icebertg. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As investor you must study the companies before you invest your money in. so in that process make me knowledgeable about thai businesses in the process. I improve all subjects, all articles that I know not just the companies I've invested and contributes to community. That is my only intention so what wrong with it. you can check all my logs to prove that before accuse me please. Show me your evidences already I'm tried of your nonsense accuse. AnaTo (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, I never actually said that there were any clear instances of advertising, but in view of the enormous amount of creations and edits dedicated specially to articles about the Central group or its projects, and other inter-connected Thai businesses, as a self-confessed investor, it is also a clear sign of COI - a possible attempt to draw attention to something User:AnaTo may well financially benefit from. There is also the question of the dozens of deleted non-free images and new images posted to Commons that have also been deleted. Hence the notability issue is only the tip of the icebertg. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU tp* 18:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if and when better sources are available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 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.