Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouse Hill Town Centre

Add links
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 Keep Gnangarra 12:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouse Hill Town Centre[edit]

Rouse Hill Town Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable shopping mall. No references affirming notability per WP:CORP, and the article appears to simply be being used for promotion. The creating editor, Tuddy (talk · contribs), has a long history of creating promotional shopping mall articles without any kind of references, aside from the mall's own webpage. --Elonka 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as crystallballery, mall is still under construction. Page should not be recreated until the mall's finished, and only then if it proves to be a notable super regional. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, doesn't seem as crystal ballish as I'd think. I'm still not fully persuaded to keep it, but if it will be the biggest, then that might be barely notable enough if enough reliable sources report it. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It is under construction so its existence is all but assured, and it will be one of the largest malls in an important country. --Charlene 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please provide sources which prove this? --Elonka 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone other than the developer is writing about it in some publication.Garrie 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GarrieIrons is simply wrong. There are 25 hits for this on Factiva, most of which are either directly about or have useful information about the project. There is, at the very least, enough sources to reference everything in this article and more. If you'd done a little more research, you might have discovered that the state government is considering building a (rare) new rail link to serve it. Folks, if you either don't have the access or can't be bothered to check if there's any sources, please hold off declaring that there aren't any. Rebecca 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but no I'm not I think you'll find the rail link is to service a region, not a shopping centre and this article is about a shopping centre. Complete with copy-vio architect concept drawings. This article, in it's current form, is naval and crystal ball gazing.Garrie 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be to service the region, but the terminus of the line is being built to service the shopping centre. I would suggest that implies some notability, wouldn't you? Regardless, I've already demonstrated that there are more than enough good sources to surpass the notability requirements in the actual policy - please don't be bloody-minded about this. Rebecca 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secondly, I bet at least a couple of those hits only mention RHTC "in passing" and are really about - the Developer, the Council, the Region, or the Buiding Industry. I'm all for writing about shopping centres when there's something to say, in line with an established project (or even Architecture).Garrie 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, I went through these hits, and the majority of them related either were a) directly about the project, or b) contained useful information and could serve as references from the article. It's a huge project, and the references reflect that - everything in this article and more could be verified, should someone take the time to do it. If you'd like to check this yourself, you're welcome to go to the library and check this yourself. In the absence of that, however, please refrain from accusing me of lying. Rebecca 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the project is of a large scale (estimates as high as $3.7 billion) Esenihc 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • — Esenihc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Um, rriigghhtt..... Parliament House was cheaper than that. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proper figure, as far as I can see, seems to be more in the area of $470 million. This doesn't change the fact that it's still really notable. Rebecca 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I was just commenting on the fact that $3.7bn is, um, a rather expensive shopping centre. Doesn't have anything to do with whether this should be kept or not, and I've just decided to change my mind again and go with Weak keep. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Rebecca. Added to this we already have an article on the future railway station, and the T-Way article will probably incorporate some information once the station at RHTC opens as well - the Rouse Hill development is definitely notable and will be one of Sydney and Australia's biggest shopping centres. JRG 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with GarrieIrons. This article fails WP:N and WP:RELY. With third party references, it shouldn't have a problem meeting notability if they are out there. Assize 11:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Agree with GarrieIrons. The pics which were removed were all copyvio, the article's written like an ad, non-NPOV. The article was the first I had heard about the centre and I live in the state. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 07:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...none of which has anything to do with the question of whether the article should remain in Wikipedia. Rebecca 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm right. I still think it's not exactly the most notable thing, but I'll change to weak delete. It still desperately needs a complete rewrite. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 10:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - upon further investigation it appears notable enough. Needs complete rewrite as others have mentioned, and better sourcing. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article urgently needs cleanup to get rid of the advertising copy, but that in and of itself is not a good reason for deletion. Lankiveil 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep It needs to be cleaned up/referenced...Balloonman 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N at present time, and is entirely speculative in nature, and reads almost like an advert. While I'm firmly of the belief that shopping centres merit an article, and this one no doubt will once it is built and independent information is available, this article is one giant cruft magnet. Orderinchaos 07:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed a fair amount of spec from the article - it still contains a bit, but at least is vaguely capable of being referencable now. Orderinchaos 07:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read what some of us have posted above? There is a veritable ton of verifiable independent information on this. Rebecca 08:16, 30 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rouse_Hill_Town_Centre&oldid=1142233417"