Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Bondi Junction

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The result was: Nomination withdrawn, after references were added to the article. Consensus is to Keep. --Elonka 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Bondi Junction

Westfield Bondi Junction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod: another Australian shopping mall article, with no references affirming notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per article criterion 7: An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Weak Keep: article is coming along somewhat, now asserts notability (and has a reference for the assertion). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Concern has been met. MER-C 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, and sanction nominator. This is one of the largest, most upscale, and most notable shopping centres in Australia, not to mention one of the flagship Westfield centres. This tactic of nominating every shopping centre for deletion regardless of its notablility (or when one has absolutely no clue how notable something is, and has made absolutely no effort to find out) is getting very old, and IMO, is verging on disruption. Rebecca 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article contradicts WP:NOT#DIR and WP:LOCAL. Todd661 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep edits by Canley have made it worth saving. It is such a pity that it took an AfD for it to be salvaged. Todd661 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This artcile has been substantially rewritten by myself although I forgot to sign in so I can't get the credit :(. I think now it is definatley worth saving.

• Strong Delete No malls! Not notable. Besdies ,there's no article to read! buh-bye MiracleMat 10:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Conditional weak keep on the basis that it is cleaned up, and referenced. Otherwise Merge and redirect whatever is salvagable to Bondi Junction, New South Wales. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, and sanction nominator as per Rebecca. Bondi Junction is now one of the biggest shopping centres in Australia and to say it is not notable is utterly ridiculous. The nominator has consistently nominated other things knowing well that they are notable (like railway stations, railway lines, etc.) JROBBO 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how ridiculous this nomination is - a Google search brings up about 51000 articles, when I take out all WP references and Westfield self references. I did a Factiva newspaper search and got 1500 articles on there as well. How could anyone nominate this for deletion? JROBBO 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentPlease take a step back and cool off for a moment. We do not need threats of unspecified sanctions in place of reasoned discussion. Assume good faith. Any article needs a claim of notability and reliable independent sources to back it up. This article could be improved in those two ways. Edison 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Rebecca. (Sanctions seem a bit harsh though...) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, according to The Age this is Westfield's most financially successful shopping centre [1]. Come on guys, this is getting tiresome: there is no rule or policy about large shopping centres/malls not being notable - just WP:AFDP which says that their notability is disputed. There is clear support in WikiProject Australia to keep such articles, and I wish people would use cleanup tags or actually discuss the matter with users who would have a better idea of notability rather than swatting every questionable article they see with deletion tags. --Canley 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find it troublesome that multiple users are expressing frustration about Elonka's nomination, insisting on the notability of the mall, and have yet to add any assertion of notability to the article. Rebecca, in particular, would do well to actually spend time working on the article and cease making bad faith assumptions and calling for sanctions against Elonka. As of this post, there aren't even any sourceless notability assertions, much less one with a reference attached to it. Thus, the article still should be speedy deleted per CSD A7. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I did add a cited reference stating that this was Westfield's newest and largest centre - I haven't even added the ref above yet ("unparalleled financial success"). I partly agree though: Rebecca, can you stop just reverting any tags Elonka adds and calling for sanctions? She's right, these articles need work. My frustrations, by the way, were more aimed at the "Blam! Blam! Kill all malls!!!" type comments, not so much Elonka. --Canley 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not reverting all of Elonka's tags. I'm keeping those that actually warrant it, such as the local interest tags for malls that are actually of only local interest, and not those, such as this, which are patently not, and which Elonka did not bother to find out about. I also stand by calling for sanctions - I'm fed up with having to spend so much time defending articles like this from guerrilla deletion tactics (speedy, then prod, then AfD), when if anything, all they need is a bit of cleanup and expansion. Rebecca 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Then might I suggest that in the future, you simply leave the {{local}} or reference tags on the article, replace them with something more to your liking, or even take the time to actually add a reference, rather than simply reverting? [2][3][4][5]. --Elonka 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak DeleteIt being Westfield's largest is not inherently notable. The strip mall down the street is the largest owned by its owner, and it is really small. It is up to the creaters of an article and those who wish to keep it to make a claim of notability and to support it with verifiable and reliable sources, not to all other editors. The article had one from the Economist which was a directory type paragraph listing which said it was there and had a lot of stores, as do many other shopping centers. The other citation told of digging a big hole in the ground, as is customary when building something. The newest cite says the owner has made a hunk of money. Still not that superlative or notable. Please do not threaten editors with sanctions if they nominate articles which could benefit from re-writing or added citations. We really need a guideline to separate the notable from the non-notable shopping mall. Edison 19:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can I just ask, what sort of information would change your mind here? I mean, what (verifiable) sentence in the intro would make you think "yes, this mall/centre is notable"? I realise it is up to creators and keepers to verify and assert notability, but it's not easy when such attempts or references are dismissed out of hand (the references, by the way, were for the figures, not to back up superlative claims). I definitely agree we need a guideline on this. However, Westfield of course is not just "the guy down the road", you are surely aware of how many centres they own, so I think this is a fallacious dismissal of a sound claim to notability. This is like saying, "this is Australia's largest shopping centre, but Papua New Guinea's largest shopping centre is tiny, so Australia's largest is therefore not notable".--Canley 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentWell, if the mall is distinguished from all other malls in the country by its size, architecture, splendor of its stores, or unique features, that would probably do it for me. Mall of America comes to mind:"the largest shopping mall in total area in the United States when it opened in 1992."See alsoWater Tower Place which is notable as a skyscraper mall which has had a profound influence for 30 years. The largest malls in the largest cities of a country might be notable. Meridian Mall in a suburb of Lansing Michigan, the state capital, stayed. Lansing Mall, the second largets, got deleted. I might have kept it. I would not have kept the 3rd, 4th, 5th etc in the Lansing area. Also the ritziest malls in the largest cities. Do people all over the country talk about visiting the mall if they are ever in the town? Do people take bus trips for a long distance just to visit the mall? Or is it just the place you go to buy a shirt at J.C Penney's? Saying it is "Westfield's largest mall" is like saying it is "Joe Doe's largest mall" because it assumes we think Westfield is inherently important. Identifying it as "the largest mall in Xville" begs the question of the significance of Xville, for people in other continents. Bondi may be notable, but the article read very similarly to innumerable writeups of utterly unmemorable malls. The intro still just says it is Westfield's largest, not the world's largest or the country's largest. Maybe it could be revised to highlight the notability of Bondi. Edison 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion here seems to raise the inadequacy of what we all mean by notable. Different people think some things are notable (or not) and others think the reverse. For example I find High Schools and large Shopping Centres to be notable, while I think most railway stations and roads are completely unnotable, yet there there appears to be little objection to keeping these. I also find villages to be notable even though they are often smaller than Schools and Shopping Centres. Perhaps for now we should move to be more inclusionist in all these areas, so I favour keep here. --Bduke 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Westfield Bondi Junction is a large and important shopping complex, and deserves to stay here. I agree with Rebecca. --Whats new? 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google News Archives gets 121 results see [6]. It might be a good idea if nominators could look for sources or ask the views of relevant Wikipedians such as Australian Wikipedians notice board before making a nomination. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the editor who wrote the article should do this. Vegaswikian 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of all The Westfield Group outlets in Australia, The Junger is actually notable - it is the only one which has Australia's only outlet for several US-based retail chains. BTW: My proposal to merge all Westfields in Australia to a single article was months ago - and didn't have legs then I don't see what's changed since! Garrie 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it is the responsiblity of the editor to show verifiablilty, notability, etc. Tagging it for improvement and then waiting a reasonable time would be polite though. Everyone who is attacking someone for kicking off an AfD debate, calm down. Personally I would delete every other shopping centre in Australia article before this one, but that doesn't mean proposing this one be deleted is outright wrong. Garrie 04:27, 22 November 2006 (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.