Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highpoint shopping centre

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 to delete. Please defer merge and redirect related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highpoint shopping centre

Contested prod, so taking this to afd for debate per procedure No opinion from me. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 13:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE per nom-WP is not the yellow pages JoshTyler 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.
• Merge/Delete and Discipline Tuddy - The article is NN per here as mentioned. At best it can be merged. I propose the ban based on the user's childish edits (scroll down a bit/NSFW) and refusal to learn Wikipedia's policies. Please note by the user's contribs that they have a thing for articles about shopping centers/retail stores and that these articles are usually merged or deleted. Numerous attempts have been made to alert the user to their disruptiveness, but so far nothing has changed. -bobby 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication that this article meets WP:CORP. I would also point out that when I added a {{prod2}} tag to the page, that Rebecca (talk · contribs) came along and reverted me, something that I found extremely inappropriate.[1] --Elonka 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a significant retail shopping area. The article states: "It is a major centre and is the only shopping centre serving Melbourne's western suburbs, a population of at least half a million people."
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please supply some references verifying that it is a notable location, aside from the organization's own website? --Elonka 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google News Archive comes up with nearly 150 sources for this see [2]. Capitalistroadster 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Most of those are passing mentions. Are there specific ones which you think are non-trivial? JoshuaZ 06:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 150 "passing mentions" in the news makes a place notable to me. And some are more than passing mentions. It's a very large shopping center. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the '150 mentions' include a whole pile of duplicates and few have much substance to them. BlueValour 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a very large shopping centre indeed and is almost a suburb of Melbourne in its own right. We have thousands of articles for places, centres etc that are smaller and less significant than this Shopping Centre. This centre is very notable in the Western area of Melbourne. --Bduke 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Those smaller articles should be tagged with {{local}} for expansion or merging. As for it being "very notable", can you provide any references which prove this, aside from the mall's own website? --Elonka 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am far too busy to hunt up stuff, particularly since I think internet sources are not what we need. This Shopping Centre has become a focal point. Many shops have been attracted to the area close to the centre. The cinema is taking trade away from those in the traditional centres and may have forced some of those to close. The swimming pool in Footscray is not to be re-opened because one is going to be built at Highpoint. Its affect on the community of the western suburbs is large. I do not think Shopping Centres are necessarily notable. This one however is. Can any other Melburnians give some cites? --Bduke 05:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We have standards for incorporated economic entities, and this doesn't pass them. Neither does it satisfy notability on cultural grounds. As a company, and as a place, this article fails to establish its importance. 150 Google hits is exceedingly low for an important place. Note too that we have been getting a glut of non-notable shopping mall articles lately and stamping on this trend would benefit Wikipedia by eliminating any kind of precedent to keep non-notable malls under the pokemon test. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 150 was for news archives. There are 29,900 hits for "Highpoint shopping centre" on Google proper. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Google hits alone do not verify notability, especially for something related to shopping. I was looking for a phone cable earlier today. Typing "Sony Ericsson USB cable" into Google got me over 60,000 hits.[3] But that doesn't mean we should have an individual Wikipedia article on that cable. --Elonka 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the correction. I still think that keeping malls that don't have coverage by independent sources would be a very bad precedent, though, so I still feel strongly that it should be deleted. The notability guidelines are as much to keep cruft out as to keep us from having articles that are hard or impossible to verify, and a lack of independent sources definitely indicates that it will be difficult to write anything of encyclopedic interest in this case. The article as written contains nothing of note that is worth saying so much that we need an article. Their official site does the job of saying what it is much better than this article does, so the only purpose the current article serves is to be a directory entry. Without indepenent coverage, this article just can't be more than a hollow profile with a traffic-driving link. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I wouldn't keep every shopping center, but one with over 400 stores (if verifiable) is certainly notable. Also must be notable as a large business in the area with this type of income. AKAF 15:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. It is one of only 5 Super regional Shopping Centres in Victoria. See [[4]]. It is the third largest Shopping Centre in Victoria - see the local Council's Plan. Super Regionals have more than 85,000 sq m of lettable area. There are only 22 in Australia. this news item shows that a company was buying a 50% share of it for $621.2 million (Australian dollars). That link from a reputable newspaper gives the quote "which has approximately 400 specialty stores" which is at least close to verifying that number. This is a notable Shopping Centre but we need to find a reference to the effect it has had on the economy of the Western suburbs of Melbourne. --Bduke 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bduke, this is a particularly notable Melbourne shopping centre. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide a verifiable third-party reference, which confirms this notability? I reviewed Bduke's news item, but the only thing asserting notability was what appeared to be a self-promotional quote. --Elonka 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Is'nt being a Super Regional Shopping Centre and the 3rd largest in Victoria good enough for you, or do you want to delete all articles on Shopping Centres? The sources for these are independant of the Shopping centre itself. Is'nt the Sydney Morning Herald and the local Council good enough? What criteria would you use to keep an article on a Shopping Centre in your neck of the woods? Australian Wikipedians are telling you it very large and notable. We have been there. Reporting on a place is hardly original research. I have been there frequently. It is 10 times larger than another Shopping Centre in Western Melbourne which has not been deleted although a "prod" was put it on in June. It is the largest shopping centre I have been in. I live in the area that has been affected by the building of it. --Bduke 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to existing article Highpoint Shopping Centre! Has no one noticed this? --Canley 08:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to duplicate article, but otherwise keep this perfectly notable shopping centre. I think it's amazing that people who have no clue of whether something is actually notable or not can so be so bloody minded in pushing for something to be deleted as being not notable. Rebecca 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, the Highpoint Shopping Centre article does far more to assert notability and references so IMO this AfD is invalid to delete that article. If relisted in a new AfD, I would of course recommend Keep. I'll add the info and references about the purchase by GPT[5] and the spat with the Myer group[6]. --Canley 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect. I support Bduke's reasoning 100%, but if this article is a duplicate, then... it's a duplicate. Lankiveil 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
• I now agree with a Redirect. I had totally missed the other article. Well done to User:Canley for spotting that. --Bduke 00:51, 7 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.