Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlingford Court

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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlingford Court

Carlingford Court (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. ArglebargleIV 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It does need sources but it is notable. I'm looking for some now. DXRAW 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Apart from sources, shouldn't the article also say why Carlingford Court is notable? -- ArglebargleIV 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats what the sources would do. DXRAW 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Nominated before, kept before. Is it just acceptable now to keep nominating articles until you get the result you want? Rebecca 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that it had been nominated before. -- ArglebargleIV 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't been nominated before, article had a prod tag added and removed and a speedy tag added and removed, thus Afd is a correct step. No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article has been previously nominated for speedy and prod but never that I can see for AfD. No assertion why subject is a notable corporation. Seraphimblade 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete being a mall does not make it notable. If sources proving notability can be provided I'll reconsider my opinion. Nuttah68 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOLE. There's nothing in the article which gives a clue as to why it is notable. Just because it exists is not a good enough reason to keep, and I can't find any trace of it having been deleted. Ohconfucius 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. According to WP:CORP, a business is notable "If the organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent of the organization itself." This article has none of that. I would also point to WP:V: "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." --Elonka 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that policy out - this article in it's current form seems well sourced and referenced. If there are facts you dispute feel free to tag them appropriately - there seems to be nothing libellous or controversial. Any editor may remove it and any editor may revert your change. Removing unsourced content can easily be achieved without deleting the article.Garrie 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Major regional shopping centre within northwestern Sydney (I know of it despite living at the other side of Australia and having never been there) - was the subject of a major corporate tug-of-war in the 1990s that made the news. I'm not close enough to find sources (Australian sources prior to 1995 tend to be located in real libraries near their source) but am happy to vouch for its notability - it's not simply a corner store. Orderinchaos78 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Rebecca; if not Strong keep per Orderinchaos78 - the article is a large well-known shopping centre in Sydney, and a Factiva search brings up 413 articles in newspapers, including a major issue with the owners (or former owners) GEM Property Trust back in the late 1990s, when they tried to put "Venture" Stores in the shopping centre, which all failed, and they overvalued the place - they had to write $12 million dollars off the shopping centre's price - OIC78 seems to be right; the article is also referenced, more than can be said of most articles of this type too. JROBBO 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Not sure of the exact details, but GEM (Growth Equities Mutual) Property Trust shares actually were frozen for several years and then merged fully into GPT, and Lend Lease Corporation were involved in it somewhere. Orderinchaos78 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If the financial and ownership issues are part of what makes the mall notable, maybe all that should be in the article? -- ArglebargleIV 06:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion for improvement. The hard bit is turning local knowledge into reliably sourced content. I would guess that's why OrderInChaos hasn't put it in yet (maybe that's what not sure of exact details means).

In terms of ownership this centre has been through several changes over it's history and also changes in branding / management.Garrie 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per Rebecca. Could some other method be attempted to encourage the article to be improved such as a comment on the talk page or dropping by a wikiproject that supports the article - it seems to have worked for other similar articles which were proposed for deletion (articles relating to shopping centres in Sydney area).Garrie 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This does not fall under any criteria of speedy keep. Also a quick check of the history of the Carlingford Court page is in order. On 31 October Rebecca removed a local tag added by Elonka, which asked for expansion of the article. On 26 November JROBBO redirected the page after Elonka added a prod tag, then Rebecca subsequently reverted the redirect on 3 December. The article was subsequently nominated for deletion on 3 February, when it looked like this. It currently looks like this. While I agree that other methods of improvement are preferable, two of the people who have voted !keep have previously edited this article in the past and had made seemingly no attempt to improve it during the three months available. One Night In Hackney 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting or making comments on editors who have made votes that you don't agree with them to try and discredit their comments/vote is not on. I've had to edit various other pages in the last three months, and I don't have the page on my watchlist, which means I haven't had much to do with it. I have already shown why this article should be kept, and that is to do with the financial worries of GEM in the late 1990s. If you want to vote delete, you can do so, but don't try to attack or discredit those who disagree with you. The fact I may have once provided an edit on the page in question is nothing more than an aside. JROBBO 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Same - I'd note I only edited the article *after* it came here - I saw the AfD, tried my best to improve it, left it for others once done. The idea of stub articles is to establish a framework that will jog those who know something about the subject or have more time and/or resources to fill it out. I've been filling out stubs in the Perth geographical area which prior to my contribution were simply one line stubs that did not express notability. It may well have been that the creator did not have the means of research at hand, or worked a 40 hour week and couldn't get into the State Library or whatever - it is a volunteer effort, after all. I have not changed my opinion and still believe Carlingford Court is notable both in terms of its magnitude and also in terms of its history. I also believe AfD is overused as a "cleanup" tool. Holding a gun to one's head is not the way to encourage article growth, as has been discussed elsewhere. As it is, there's nothing wrong with the article remaining as a stub, and until Wikipedia policy changes and says "no stubs" (which I doubt will ever happen), that will always be the way. Orderinchaos78 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep People have raised good reasons why it might be notable, but none of these are in the article itself. Wikipedia being voluntary and not a job, some leeway should be given to delays in adding additional content as per comments by JROBBO. But if there actually is some notable copy to be added, let's add it and we can bring the great Shopping Centre Debate to a close (and if there's not, then we can also bring the Debate to a close the other way).Jeendan 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have reviewed the new version of the article[1] but in my opinion there's still not enough there to justify the article's existence. Two references to street directories, and one article in a local business magazine talking about a building expansion. That's still not "multiple non-trivial reliable published sources" per WP:CORP. I stand by my original opinion that this article should be deleted, and/or have any genuinely notable information merged into a parent article about the local community. --Elonka 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed with Elonka, and stand by my earlier assessment. An industry-insider rag and two street directories are not non-trivial mention. Seraphimblade 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Orderinchaos78 and JROBBO and Rebecca. The reasons being given to delete this article would cover 4 in every 5 articles on Wikipedia and just about every stub there is, it should be kept and improved. If you think it needs sources then put a sources tag on it!! Is the writing NPOV? Yes. Is the subject notable/would Wikipedia be a better place if this article was completed? Yes. Does it fail any of the speedy deletion criteria? No. Can it be improved? Clearly yes if you read the submissions above mine. DanielT5 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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.