Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro Taigum

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. BJ^Talk 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Taigum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\^talk 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why. Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing. And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) brianlucas (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:N and an overabundance of WP:SPAM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, appears to meet notability requirements through third-party coverage, although only just. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- What third-party coverage? None is pointed to by the article. The "general notability guideline" is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" but if no sources are provided then the guideline is not met. brianlucas (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Notability must be shown in Reliable sources... having adverts and blurbs in sources do not create a notability. The asserted notability must be explained and THEN sourced. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. ~~There is nothing notable about it. Fails [[WP:Corp}}. Fails WP:N.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in the Courier Mail on 10 October 2003 entitled "Top building trio snared for $200m city project" talking about how this centre was a runner-up for a major award, also there was an article in the "Bayside Star" newspaper about this shopping centre a few weeks ago (in the context of the likely collapse of Centro Properties Group), which I will add in once I actually find where I put the damn thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Was the mall itself a "runner up" or was it the contruction or design company? And how does not being a winer make anything notable? And we do understand that (not) being awarded a construction contract is not the same as (not) being awarded a first place in architechure or design. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in multiple sources, for whatever reason, is coverage in multiple sources. The reasons for that coverage are irrelevant in terms of WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, that is an incorrect reading of WP:CORP, which states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, more info may be found for this shopping centre. Second, look at all the other Centro Shopping Centres who have articles, most of them are a lot worse. Third, Yu Feng is a group which own shopping centres in Australia, however it is now fully owned by Centro. Iam currently in the process of improving all the Centro Shopping Centres' artciles. Sheepunderscore (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, pointing out that other even crappier articles exist is not helpful (WP:WAX). We are not here discussing other things... only this article. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". I do not care how many blurbs you might find praising its many stores, that does not make it notable. I have yet to see even one reliable source given that directly shows notability... and my own searches I have found only that it exists. It nay be a delightful place to buy new shows, have one's hair done, check on real estate, have lunch, etc... but THAT is not notable. And to repeat the WP:RS must deal directly with its notability, as simply having a trivial mention does not create notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - enough 3rd party ref's for WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CORP, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove to me that they are "trivial or incidental" mentions. In this case, it cannot be done, so I will err on the side of Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have withdrawn my delete per sourcing done by User:Bilby. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article is now well-sourced and notability is proven. - Dravecky (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (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.