Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt (2nd nomination)

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 List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. A narrow/literal reading of the discussion would indicate deleting, but the redirect resets things back to how they were after the previous AfD, which seems like the right thing to do. I'm going to stop short of protecting the page, but @BugMenn: you are cautioned to not make edits contrary to previously developed consensus without gaining support via the appropriate talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Mount Druitt[edit]

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

Was redirected as a result of a prior AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt. Editor continues to ignore the consensus of that prior discussion. Please delete and salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been the outcome during the previous AFD discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be eligible for a G4 Speedy (recreation of deleted article), but the editor (User:BugMenn) did add the "Incidents" section, so it's a bigger article. So IMO it's OK to reconsider it. One problem is, the "Incidents" section is just a grab-bag of police reports -- it's not like any encyclopedia-worthy stuff happened there. The editor has recreated the the deleted article, and just now deleted the AfD notice from the top of the article, which is not the kind of behavior we want to see -- or reward. I don't think User:BugMenn is promoting the entity. If he was he wouldn't have written the "Incidents" section. He just likes shopping mall articles. If anything, the article as it stands now kind of deprecates the mall, what with all the police-blotter info and all.

I don't care about shopping malls, but the existence of the article doesn't bother me. The previous AfD did have a couple of Keep votes, from editors pointing out that it would leave {{Westfield Australia}} with a single red link (or black link anyway, if the template is edited) and that seems unwarranted and would look a bit odd. Here's the template:

This makes sense. If editors want to document the activities of Westfield Australia (an apparently notable entitity) to this level of detail, I don't see how that's harmful. If we don't want this, then maybe we should look at all the articles in {{Westfield Australia}} and nominate then en masse, rather than just picking off one?

On the other hand, the article does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Even the new material about the big brawl just mentions the mall in passing. So a delete vote on that basis would be defensible. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt fails WP:GNG. The incidents section is now bigger than the rest of the article. So WP:UNDUE. But these incidents don't even establish notability of the centre. The editor that has tried to defy consensus also has preciously used socks in AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is concerning that the editor in question didn't get his way Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Westfield_Mount_Druitt. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after thinking it over, and looking at the other links in {{Westfield Australia}}. It seems illogical to focus on one link in {{Westfield Australia}} and say "let's delete just that one", because all the articles are basically similar. If someone wants to bring up all the articles {{Westfield Australia}} for consideration for deletion, that'd be different. But that'd be heavier lifting, and I'd probably oppose that.

Sure, the creator of the article is not acting great, but we don't delete otherwise acceptable articles to punish editors (except in the case of banned editors), that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Herostratus (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the merits of the article in this AFD and its suitability to be included in Wikipedia. AFDs are not a discussion related to the behaviour of the creator. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know; it was user LibStar who brought it up. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you've said previously that this article does not seem to meet WP:GNG yet now you say keep. Secondly you've used an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second G in GNG stands for "Guideline". It doesn't meet the GNG and that's a data point; it's not the end of the discussion. Let me turn the question around. The proposition is this: "There are 35 links in {{Westfield Australia}}. Many of them [maybe all, I didn't check them all] are to articles substantially similar to this one. Yet this one and only this one should be singled out to be deleted, because ___________." Well, what goes in the blank?

What we need here is a bundled deletion nomination for all the articles in {{Westfield Australia}} (unless there are a few that, for some reason should be excluded -- can't imagine what it would be, a mall is a mall, but maybe). WP:MULTIAFD gives step-by-step instructions on how to do this. Let's do that, and fine. You probably won't get my vote, but that's just me, and maybe you'll be able to clear out all 35 or so articles at once. Until then, it makes no sense to make a scattershot approach to this group of articles. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most of the larger Westfields are notable but many of the smaller aren't. You still are using a flawed WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There is absolutely no need for multiple nominations and this cannot be used to argue a keep case. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the WP:ALLORNOTHING. I read WP:ALLORNOTHING and I understand [[WP:ALLORNOTHING, I just don't agree with it. It's an essay, just somebody's opinion, and IMO it's pretty silly because it says "Keep, because if you delete this you will have to delete other articles in this class [if you're going to be logical and consistent]" is a bad argument, when actually it's a very reasonable argument, if deleting the other articles in the class doesn't look like a good idea. What WP:ALLORNOTHING says, in essence, is "If you have a class of very similar articles, deleting some of them and keeping others, at random, is a good way to make an encyclopedia". And that's silly.

So what's your cutoff? Westfield Mount Druitt is 60,088 square meters with 240 stores. Westfield Belconnen is 94,718 square meters with 287 stores. Is Westfield Belconnen "in" and Westfield Mount Druitt "out", then? Westfield Woden is 62,000 square meters and 260 stores. Does that extra 1,912 square feet and 20 stores seal the deal for Westfield Woden? A lot of these malls are larger, but a lot of them are in the 60,000+ square meter range. Westfield Mount Druitt is in that smaller group.

So, I mean, I'm asking. Maybe there should be a 70,000 square meter cutoff, or something. I note Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) exists (it didn't pass though). I also see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, which just shows that there are Wikipedians who are interested in this subject and willing to work on it. I'd leave 'em alone and let 'em'; they're not going after your articles. Herostratus (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Keep I know I've done something bad, but I will work on the article when on the draft AFC and submit when it meets th WP:GNG standard. Same thing happened with the Marrickville Metro article which was deleted in December. BugMenn (talk) 14:40 5 March 2017 (UTC)

you need to accept outcomes of deletion discussions not try to circumvent processes and recreate deleted articles without consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in previous AfD discussion and per LibStar above.Charles (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 02:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or "Redirect" is okay too), obviously, to List of Westfield shopping centres in Australia. I say "obviously" because the list-article exists and can easily be expanded with some content on this mall and all others. Redirect or merge are good alternatives to outright deletion, in part because they leave behind the edit history allowing for re-establishment of the article if/when there is _substantial_ new content available. Just because the list-article and the navigation template exist and have barely any content besides the bare list, doesn't mean that content should not be developed at the list article. At this point there is not substantial content in this article (of the "incidents" only the first one possibly merits any mention at all), and if this mall is covered in the list-article there would be no need to split it out to a separate article. Any editor interested in reconsidering the other mall articles can and should edit at the main list-article first, making a table there probably, and proceed to implement mergers/redirects as they see fit and/or with merger proposals posted at the corresponding articles. The navigation template can/should be updated to show a blacklink (i.e. no bluelink, no redlink) for the Westfield Mount Druitt mall and any others merged to the main article. (I think that is mildly better than showing a bluelink which suggests to the reader that there will be a separate article about it, but which brings the reader to a row in the list-article.)

I think this is a sensible compromise in this case, and that the option to merge to a list-article is too often overlooked in general at AFD. :) --do ncr am 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see this recommendation, except with "Redirect" rather than "Merge", was the outcome of the previous AFD. Perhaps the problem then was that nothing was merged, i.e. the entire content was effectively deleted by the redirect, and there was no way forward apparent to the contributor(s). What is needed is for a real merger to be done, with the target list-article at least partially transformed into a real list-article with content and inline citations to sources, from its current state (effectively a navigation template, merely listing malls while providing no content, sourced or unsourced, about them). One could start by developing a table row or two about some of the most notable malls, drawing on their articles. Then make a smaller row about this mall which seems not to be individually notable but which can exist as a list-item (for which no absolute law on notability applies; list-item notability can be defined by local consensus at any list-article). The last AFD outcome and/or its implementation was too harsh in effect. --do ncr am 22:42, 20 March 2017 (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.