Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosebud Plaza

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. By the way, there is an unacceptable amount of off-topic personal comments here that are utterly unrelated to the subject and hand. Please don't clog up deletion discussions with personal feuds. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud Plaza[edit]

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

The only coverage I could find of this shopping mall was a minor fire and an elderly woman being attacked, and that's not significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are you sure? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1&2 are about a fire and therefore not significant coverage.

Source 3 is local coverage and per WP:ORG that is not enough.

Source 4 is a robbery, same as 1&2

Source 5 is merely a trivial mention, in fact it isn't even about the mall. It's about a health service.

Source 6 is the same as source 4

Source 7 is about a bomb plot, not the centre

Source 8 - same as 4

Source 10 - elderly woman attack which is run-of-the-mill mall life, same as 1&2.

(next page)

Source 11 - a bit of coverage, although from a reliable source, but doesn't equal to significant coverage

Source 12 is about a meeting not the mall

Source 13 is cars not the mall

Source 14 is about an accident not the mall

Source 15 - same as 14

Source 16 - trivial mention about bank's opening hours, not significant

Source 17 is the same as 5

All in all a minor shopping mall with no evidence of significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The amount of ghits something gets doesn't really guarantee notability. Something can get a lot of google hits but still be considered non-notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, especially if it's something that gets a lot of trivial coverage and/or is very into putting out PR for itself. I know that a lot of indie bands, movies, and authors will put out a massive amount of PR, which means that it'll show up more. (Then you have the sites that do nothing but ping back whatever you typed in and sites that aren't considered to be reliable secondary sources that could show notability.) See WP:GOOGLEHITS for more on this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Actually Google News is very helpful in determining whether a subject is notable. See this for more information. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not terribly gung ho on keeping this article, however, it just simply amazes me, how you go to great lengths in saving one article - by that I mean, finding the appropriate sources, adding in information - and then you nominate another, without even thoroughly going through the sources, and doing everything that can be done to establish the article, prior to a last resort, AfD. Now that's just an observation, take it however you please, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Hornsby is a large, major shopping centre with hundreds of stores and almost one-hundred thousand square feet, and as per WP:NPLACE is notable for that fact alone. Deleting such a large mall would be just plain silly. This however is undoubtedly one of the "very small malls" (from WP:NPLACE), which "are generally deleted". I would improve the article, but I can find no coverage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Till I Go Home (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Chadstone Shopping Centre is another 100,000 m2 bigger than Hornsby. Size doesn't always count. It's really about the 17 sources ~ which I'm sure there would be a few 'good' sources. I haven't gone through them as much, but I'm glad I'm in good company with that, too. On a side note, I start school tommorow, I coundnt care less how this turns out - I just want to stress that there can be stuff done to improve the article if people tried. "Why don't you try" people will say, my reply is: If you'd like to do school instead of me, by all means I'll improve it - because it can be done. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have school tomorrow as well. Even if the article could be improved, I would probably stay up and do it. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? all of a sudden are we experts on each others priorities and what we have to do? No. So a suggestion would be to mind our own business' ...I think that would be the appropriate approach. Thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So first you whinge about a non-notable shopping mall up at AfD, then suggest for someone to improve it and when I do some work on the article you get annoyed.... Till I Go Home (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) I didn't even see the work you did on it prior to commenting, B) I didn't know it was so difficult to simpky add a Notability tag to the article, that way I would have the time to get to it, and if I found there was clearly nothing that could be done, I would have requested it to be deleted. C) I did not suggest that someone improve it, I just said it can be improved.

I remember giving you a BarnStar for your excellent work you did saving the Hornsby article. I should really take it back, but never mind because not only is it worthless, it just highlights that you like to do that type of work for some articles, and not others. If anything, that's the only thing I'm "Annoyed" at. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I'm being put in a corner for this. YOU said that you thought the article could be improved, so I edit the article to see if some sort of notability can be made (and possibly withdraw my nom. if so) and that's still not good enough! And I didn't "save" Hornsby. If you look at the discussion, it was closed as "no consensus". That mall has nothing to do with this AfD, I don't understand why you insist on bringing up something which has been left in the past. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a step back here. I'm not putting you into a corner. I just think there should have been a different approach. The damage is done, it looks like this article will be "in the past" too. But at least, we both, I hope, have learnt something useful from this. Now, I'm really off, it's late + school :| talk soon, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read that but it still holds true to what I was saying: it's not about the amount of hits that come up in a Google search, but what it brings up. You can have a search that brings up a million hits for something, but if none of those hits is something that could be considered a reliable and independent source that shows notability then the amount of ghits is meaningless. More hits means that you're more likely to find sources, but it's not a guarantee. I personally don't have an opinion one way or another as far as the notability of the Plaza goes, but the amount of ghits can't really be used as a justification for keeping an article. I use Google all the time for AfDs (my search engine of choice), so I'm not denying that it can be a valuable tool. I'm just saying that not everything it brings up can be usable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The key criterion is significant coverage. It is always possible to say that an article about something at a place is is more about the event than the place, but a place where newsworthy events keep happening is arguably notable .

some of the events are only borderline newsworthy, but some, such as the bombing, seem more important. "aboutness" is a rather difficult thing to pin down. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think based on what I just said, it passes the GNG. I still don't think we should cover it. Whether such events are in the news and available to us is a matter of the vagaries of google and google news, which cover some area's newspapers and not others. and within an area do not necessarily cover all the newspapers. I consider the GNG criterion useless unless there is nothing else to go on, and the statement in the guideline that we rely on it most to be incorrect. I have come to thing we are actually not using it. We've gotten too good at quibbling about the qualifiers.We rely mostly on our sense of notability and adjust the way we interpret the guideline to correspond. If I thought we should keep this,I could use the guideline to say so; if I thought we should delete this, I could use the guideline to say so. A 2000,000 sq ft mall with only routine anchor stores is not notable unless something really exceptional is involved. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 5 February 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.