Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Innaloo

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. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Innaloo

Per precedents, malls are not inherently notable. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werribee_Plaza and countless others. Pascal.Tesson 06:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, need some expansion of the article, already put as a Australian related stub. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

although once again the question is expand how?. Nothing seems to indicate that this mall has any sort of particular notability. Is there really any chance that an article about that topic can reach any sort of encyclopedic value? And are you not at least a bit intrigued by the fact that precedents establish that malls which are not otherwise notable should not have their own article? Pascal.Tesson 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The features and development of Westfield innaloo has been expended a bit. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Medtopic 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Snottygobble 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and refer to its existence in Innaloo. --Steve 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly notable and interesting. Rebecca 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to note that the mall is already mentioned in the Innaloo article. Also a reminder that this is not a vote so that whether you vote for keep or delete is not as important as providing reasons to explain how this article does or does not conform to the existing policies, guidelines and precedents on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 06:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Why not move the text in Innaloo article to Westfield Innaloo, it seems this would make more sense. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I take your hint. Here's an expansion. Keep. Wikipedia:Notability is neither policy nor guideline; it is merely "an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians." Personally I disagree with it. Westfield Innaloo is neutral and verifiable, and that's enough for me. Snottygobble 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • At least there's have a photo evidence showing that this shopping centre is exists. In contrast to the other shopping centres, there's not a good point to deleting this kind of articles. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Evidence of existence is not evidence of importance. If I post a photo of myself, can I have a vanity article, please? — Haeleth Talk 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Evidence is one of the way to make the article verifable. In contrast to the AfD for Werribee Plaza, which there are no third party sources at there. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. I live in Perth (although about 20km away) and agree with most of the information given. I can verify it is one of the major shopping malls in the area however that would involve me uploading copyrighted images. MER-C 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per above it is notable and interesting Yuckfoo 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: just another unremarkable set of buildings doing the job they were built to do. Wikipedia is not a retail directory, it is an encyclopedia. It is a place for knowledge, as distinct from mere facts. The history and economic impact of shopping malls in general is a very important encyclopedic topic. The precise location and composition of any individual shopping mall will only be in very exceptional circumstances. This one appears not to be exceptional. — Haeleth Talk 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Haeleth has articulated the issue very well, and I concur. -- whpq
  • Some of the history information has been added to the article. However its history information is a bit harder to be obtained due to lack of searchable information besides the documentation from the local government. I've tried to add the information as much as possible. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable mall from independent sources shown in the article. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - verifiable and notable to local citizens. -- I@n 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - as above from I@n. Lankiveil 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. Existence and verifiability are not the point. No notability stated, implied, or even attempted. If I change the names in this article, it will look like every other mall article with little effort. Tychocat 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable mall. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable local shopping mall. Nachoman-au 10:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Merge - sure, most malls are verifiable and locally notable. But few are notable on a wider scale. I think it would be better in most cases like these if the mall was mentioned within the suburb's article, but with 50 or more Australian malls already having articles, I think precedent might have already been set. Actually, looking over some of the existing mall articles, most are little more than stubs, and should probably be merged into the article for their suburb.--Mako 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this mall is notable and verifiable. Orangehead 16:50, 31 July 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.