Content deleted Content added
Orderinchaos (talk | contribs) →[[Karrinyup Shopping Centre]]: comment |
Orderinchaos (talk | contribs) →[[Karrinyup Shopping Centre]]: comment |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
******Oh, good grief. I noticed the article while I was sorting stubs that had been misfiled under {{template|business-stub}}, and I nominated it because it didn't seem notable and when I looked the only articles I found were either about its owners or trivial mentions. Since I had already looked for sources and didn't think there were any good ones, I wasn't impressed by the tag requesting sources, and I decided to bring it to AFD. Check the contribution log, and try assuming some good faith next time, eh? -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
******Oh, good grief. I noticed the article while I was sorting stubs that had been misfiled under {{template|business-stub}}, and I nominated it because it didn't seem notable and when I looked the only articles I found were either about its owners or trivial mentions. Since I had already looked for sources and didn't think there were any good ones, I wasn't impressed by the tag requesting sources, and I decided to bring it to AFD. Check the contribution log, and try assuming some good faith next time, eh? -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
******As for the [[WP:SNOW]] thing, there have only been four commenters on the AFD. Of those, two think it should be kept (and have promised to provide sources, which are still forthcoming), one thinks it should be deleted, and one hasn't decided one way or the other. How is that a consensus? -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
******As for the [[WP:SNOW]] thing, there have only been four commenters on the AFD. Of those, two think it should be kept (and have promised to provide sources, which are still forthcoming), one thinks it should be deleted, and one hasn't decided one way or the other. How is that a consensus? -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
*******Note it was nominated at 23:00 WST and 01:00 AEST. Only those of us crazy enough to be up at this hour even noticed it. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Keep''' per [[WP:N]] - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]], down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a [[WP:SNOW]] case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Strong Keep''' per [[WP:N]] - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]], down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a [[WP:SNOW]] case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
**Y'know, when I look at [[WP:N]], I don't actually see any discussion of shopping centers at all. There IS a bit about widespread media coverage, though, so if you've found some sources that I couldn't reach over the pond here, then by all means add them to the article. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
**Y'know, when I look at [[WP:N]], I don't actually see any discussion of shopping centers at all. There IS a bit about widespread media coverage, though, so if you've found some sources that I couldn't reach over the pond here, then by all means add them to the article. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:23, 16 July 2007
Karrinyup Shopping Centre
- Karrinyup Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Page is about an Australian shopping center. It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Actually, there's hardly any article within the article; the bulk of the page is a listing of stores within the shopping center, which seems to be right around the margins of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I took a look to see whether it could be expanded sensibly, but the media mentions I found were fairly trivial in nature. As such, I'm not particularly sanguine about its prospects for expansion, and I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that right now the article currently does not demonstrate the notability of the centre. I will withhold stating whether or not I believe that the article should be kept or deleted until editors with some knowledge of this centre are given a few days to determine if this article can be salvaged. I also agree that the tenant lists are not in keeping with WP:NOT and WP:TENANTS. Skeezix1000 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note that WP:TENANTS is an essay. Orderinchaos 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Yes, the references tag is there for that reason (added after you attempted to prod the article). I'm on the phone right this moment to a friend with Factiva access, and we have 387 articles in front of us, from which we have so far found at least 20 significant references which pass both the WP:RS and WP:N tests, and provide a reasonable history of the article. This includes local and national papers of record, reports on the attendance of significant international musicians for events, international journals relevant to the subject matter, and even comments made to the media by significant members of the the state's legislative bodies. Am I the only one who can (after we get the time to perform a significant rewrite of the article which has been on a project to do list for a while) see a Snowball keep in our future? Thewinchester (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quickly get a few of those sources in the article, demonstrating the centre's notability, and then this shouldn't be a problem. More comprehensive article clean-up and addition of sources could wait until later for now. Skeezix1000 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've got full text copies of all those articles in question sitting in my inbox. In about 24hrs time baring the end of the world getting in my way they will be included. Thewinchester (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great. If they're as good as you say they are, and they make this into an actual article that demonstrates notability, I'd have no problem withdrawing the nom. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would simply refer to the comments of Orderinchaos below, This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. This is already staring to smell like WP:POINT. Thewinchester (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, good grief. I noticed the article while I was sorting stubs that had been misfiled under {{business-stub}}, and I nominated it because it didn't seem notable and when I looked the only articles I found were either about its owners or trivial mentions. Since I had already looked for sources and didn't think there were any good ones, I wasn't impressed by the tag requesting sources, and I decided to bring it to AFD. Check the contribution log, and try assuming some good faith next time, eh? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- As for the WP:SNOW thing, there have only been four commenters on the AFD. Of those, two think it should be kept (and have promised to provide sources, which are still forthcoming), one thinks it should be deleted, and one hasn't decided one way or the other. How is that a consensus? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note it was nominated at 23:00 WST and 01:00 AEST. Only those of us crazy enough to be up at this hour even noticed it. Orderinchaos 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would simply refer to the comments of Orderinchaos below, This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. This is already staring to smell like WP:POINT. Thewinchester (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great. If they're as good as you say they are, and they make this into an actual article that demonstrates notability, I'd have no problem withdrawing the nom. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've got full text copies of all those articles in question sitting in my inbox. In about 24hrs time baring the end of the world getting in my way they will be included. Thewinchester (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quickly get a few of those sources in the article, demonstrating the centre's notability, and then this shouldn't be a problem. More comprehensive article clean-up and addition of sources could wait until later for now. Skeezix1000 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per WP:N - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in Perth, down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade. Orderinchaos 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Y'know, when I look at WP:N, I don't actually see any discussion of shopping centers at all. There IS a bit about widespread media coverage, though, so if you've found some sources that I couldn't reach over the pond here, then by all means add them to the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- delete I don't think a shopping center is notable enough on its own to be mentioned either outside of a page devoteed to the company who owns it and/or on a page of the location if its notable. Maybe if someone famous died there or if there was a huge lawsuit that made it news worthy, but I don't see anything like that. NobutoraTakeda 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't know why there's the calls above for a WP:SNOW closure. In any case, the claims of notability above would be infinitely more helpful if sources were actually given and not just implied. If the sources are all older (ie. dead tree sources) that's fine, but they still must be given. Barring the discovery of actual sources to support the claims of notability I can only argue to delete this one. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article is appropriately marked as a stub at the present moment. As said previously, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Orderinchaos 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)