Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania)

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 Sylvania, New South Wales#Commercial area. While this is an unlikely search term with the disambiguator, it will still be displayed as a suggested link when "Southgate Shopping Centre" is entered in the search box, or as a result on the search results page. Thus, it remains a redirect that may be useful to readers. SpinningSpark 18:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. coverage is very routine. Also by international standards, this is a relatively small one storey shopping centre. There are probably at least 30 larger multi storey shopping centres in Sydney alone LibStar (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. We don't usually keep shopping centre articles with so few stores unless there is some special claim to fame, which there is none. Ajf773 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article will be expanded and the Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania) will be soon expanded and will become a multi storey shopping mall. There are many stores in the centre that should be named and there are over 60 stores and will soon be over 100 stores when the expansion is completed. BugMenn (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the source which is 2 years old mentions expansion but how can you say soon. Secondly it said it could not will include extra levels. LibStar (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Southgate Sylvania meets the WP:Notability and WP:ANCHORS. The centre also has a huge history of development and will expand soon after the owners purchase of the adjoining hotel. It is a special part of the suburb Sylvania and many locals visit the centre each year. Pindel4567802 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC) — Pindel4567802 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- WP:ANCHORS is not a policy nor a guideline, it is a consensus for inclusion of content on Shopping Mall articles. Has nothing to do with WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck vote by indef blocked sockpuppet. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BugMenn/Archive) • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fails notability as a stand alone article, but I would suggest some of the more notable elements could be merged or incorporated into the "Commercial area" section of the Sylvania, New South Wales article. Possibly redirect this article to Sylvania, New South Wales as well. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect with the "(Sylvania)". Unlikely search term. And there's a shopping complex also called southgate in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point with the redirect. Transferring some of the content here to the Sylvania article would still be useful -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sylvania, New South Wales § Commercial area, which already has content about this shopping centre. Any content worthy of merging can be accessed via retention of the article's Revision history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect with the "(Sylvania)". Unlikely search term. And there's a shopping complex also called southgate in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that, on 11:37 13 November 2016 (UTC). The statement conveys the fallacy that being a likely search term is the only reason to keep a redirect.

WP:N states, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems states, "Instead of removing content from an article, consider...[m]erging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".
WP:REDIRECT#Reasons for not deleting states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...1. They have a potentially useful page history..."
WP:REDIRECT#Reasons for not deleting states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article..."
Also, WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", where redirect is a form of editing to improve the page. Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Northamerica1000. Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect with the "(Sylvania)". Unlikely search term. And there's a shopping complex also called southgate in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Repetition in Argumentation states, "repeating the same arguments does not help to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS." Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note in several AfDs you love directing others what to do. And therefore you come across as... LibStar (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which AfDs are those? Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2016 (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.