Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro Roselands

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Roselands[edit]

Shopping centre; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Fails to point out notability; it's just a shopping mall. Are we going to give every mall an article? Also, not properly sourced... only links to the malls homepage. (Although, I'm not sureNehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) how one sources a mall...) --The Way 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following nomination, a claim to notability has indeed been formulated. Would you be willing to reconsider, or do you still think this is best deleted? --Nehwyn 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep If it were notable it would be easy to source. There would be published articles on the notable aspects. For a trivial example, The Mall of America has been the subject of many articles. Dimitrii 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Later references have assured me there is established notability of pioneer status and size. Thanks to Nehwyn for bringing me back to the discusion. Dimitrii 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like another of the dozens of articles created by Tuddy (talk · contribs). :/ There's also a problem in that some of the major shopping mall chains are listing every single one of their stores as a redlink, which is actively encouraging people to go through and create an article on each one. I'm deleting or tagging them with {{local}} as I find them. As for this one, I recommend deletion, or merge it into the article about the parent area, per WP:LOCAL. --Elonka 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly interesting and notable article. How can it be of only local interest when people who don't live remotely nearby finds of interest? Rebecca 04:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, as it does not meet WP:CORP. If you think it does, however, please do explain how. --Nehwyn 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count seventeen newspaper hits in a database search, so I'd say it meets the first one. That said, I vote on the basis of whether something is notable and of interest to a sizable audience, not whether it meets some finicky guideline of questionable support which I've barely heard of in my three years on this project. Rebecca 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm. First, this is not a vote. Still, thanks for informing us about your opinion on Wikipedia guidelines. --Nehwyn 08:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pfft. Firstly, I contend that it does pass the guideline. Secondly, since whether it does or not pass this guideline, many articles of this nature survive AfD, I'm questioning who actually supported said "guideline" in the first place. Thirdly, guidelines are not laws, which is why I'm making a case for why I believe the article should be kept on its merits. Rebecca 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning how guidelines are formulated is not for this page; take it to the talk page for that guideline, if you don't like it. The previous consensus on malls / shopping centres is to delete their articles. But since you contend this one does pass the guidelines... forth with the evidence, please. =) --Nehwyn 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're simply pulling claims out of thin air. There has been no such consensus to delete articles on malls and shopping centres, since they routinely either get keep or no consensus results on AfD. Rebecca 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. As precedents have it, malls are considered generally not notable. Of course, a specific claim to notability can be established for a particular mall, but malls as a category are not automatically notable (unlike, say, towns). --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose page is that? How old is it? As can be seen by the fact that most of the shopping centre articles on AfD are currently surviving it, and look set to receive a vote of keep, trying to claim there is a consensus to the contrary is pretty stupid. Rebecca 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. That is a Wikipedia page, no user's in particular. I personally still think that shopping centres / malls are not automatically notable, and therefore their article must state a specific claim to notability. --Nehwyn 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is your personal opinion. Please quit trying to claim it has some sort of consensus support when it patently does not. Rebecca 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is my opinion. But sorry, I still maintain it is in accordance with the Precedents page linked above. --Nehwyn 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roselands is over 40 years old, was Australia's first large shopping centre of its type, was the largest in the southern hemisphere for many years, had Australia's first "food court", and we have a wonderful old image in Commons. There was a lot of text about it in Grace Bros. and Roselands, New South Wales, so maybe this article was previously merged? Anyway, I've added the above to hopefully shore up its notability a bit. I have to agree with Rebecca... the article was a bit of a mess, but I think Wikipedia stands to miss out on a lot of interesting historical information if articles like this are constantly merged and deleted under WP:CORP or G11 or whatever, rather than people cleaning up or researching. ~~PS. is that ballot warning really necessary or justified? (I've removed it).~~ --Canley 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedias are not for "interesting". Encyclopaedias are for "notable". There are things which may very well be interesting, but that are not notable, and hence do not belong on Wikipedia. And notability must be referenced, not vouched for, so (according to guidelines) multiple, independent, non-trivial references are needed to establish notability for this shopping centre. Can anyone provide them? --Nehwyn 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canley has given you five very good reasons why it is notable, including at least one that should be indisputable (largest in the Southern Hemisphere for a long period). There is a very clear difference between believing that something that should be deleted and making a logical case for it and simply being querulous, and you're well and truly in the second category at the moment. Rebecca 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I have provided "multiple" (2), "independent" (local govt and trade association) and "non-trivial" (see previous) references, and that's just online ones. So what's the problem? I don't think "all shopping malls should be kept", and I don't think they should "all be deleted or merged". I think this one, as is stated in the intro, is verifiably notable (historically, culturally and commercially) on its own merits, and these are backed up by the references.

Notability is too subjective and vague to be policy not guideline. See above where Dimitrii has cited the Mall of America as a notable shopping precinct which is the subject of many articles... not a great example unfortunately as the article only has one reference! WP:POINT aside, no one's going to nominate that for deletion, are they?

Can you give me a reason why you're placing a ballot warning at the top of the AfD although there is no evidence of anyone trying to shore up support for the article? Is it something you do as standard or is it because Rebecca said she was "voting" keep? --Canley 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ballot warning was because and editor expressed the idea that this page is for "voting" (a common misconception about AfD). Having cleared that's not the case, the warning may of course go. --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after cleanup by Canley. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on your motivations? --Nehwyn 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of the two references that have been added to the article after this nomination, one is about the Roselands suburb, not the shopping centre. The other one I think is legitimate indeed. --Nehwyn 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference contains information in the shopping centre, and is thus used as a source to back up claims in the article made about that shopping centre. You're verging seriously close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Rebecca 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing in a debate page. If you feel that is disruptive to Wikipedia, you can of course report it to RfC user. --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing this article is notable enough to keep. You had stopped to the downright irrational in order to get the article deleted at all costs - trying to strike out a reference on the basis that it was "about the Roselands suburb"", despite the fact that it referenced many of the articles claimed. This is where, IMO, you started to cross the line from discussion into disruption. Rebecca 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think my behaviour is disruptive, feel free to report it to User RfC. --Nehwyn 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Canterbury page is about the Roselands suburb, if that's what your referring to. Did you actually read it? The shopping centre is specifically referred to in some detail in the 4th and 6th paragraphs of the 2nd section concerning the construction and the fire, which are the parts of the article which reference it. --Canley 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two references you brought forth following the nomination indeed combine to back up a specific claim, that this has been the largest austral shopping centre for a period of time, and that may be reason enough to keep the article indeed. --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First shopping centre in Australia. I once went on a school excursion to it. Notable shopping centre. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually preceded by the Canberra Centre, but it's still very much notable. Rebecca 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Canley and Rebecca. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think Canley and Rebecca have already established notability for this, but can I ask how this is a "corporation" as established under WP:CORP? Surely Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest would be a more appropriate category (although it is more than "local" interest, as it was the biggest shopping centre in Australia for a long time...) JROBBO 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on notability. As for your question, WP:CORP criteria apply to economic entities in general (don't be fooled by the abbreviated page name), including malls. As for Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest, that is a "how to" on creating and maintaining pages for locally relevant entities; it is not concerned with notability, and contains no notability criteria. --Nehwyn 16:51, 1 November 2006 (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.