Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Entertainment 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 keep. Noting that I've participated in this AfD, closing on the basis of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR given that this has been left open for more than a week. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurong Entertainment Centre

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep major entertainment centre in Singapore. I believe it houses the only ice skating rink in the country. --Vsion 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain the local context. The name "Shopping Center" can be quite misleading. But these "shopping centers" are actually major service, commercial, and entertainment hub, located at the center of a large residential district serving hundreds of thousands of people. These are not just business corporations. The supermarket in the mall is a business, but the "center" is the hub for many activities in that community. You may still think it is not worthy for wikipedia, that is a fair opinion. But WP:CORP does not apply here because it is not a purely corporation or business entity. --Vsion 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! :) Any source on the not-for-profit activities? --Nehwyn 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a need for not-for-profit activities in this mall for it not to be classified as a company or a corporation? Now since you insist on using WP:CORP, kindly tell us just what is the name of this "company" or "corporation", who is its CEO, where is it listed, and where is it corporatised?--Huaiwei 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of non-business activity has been mentioned by another editor. Since that may be an important fact to include in the article, I have asked whether there is any reference on them. As for WP:CORP, please keep in mind that, despite being called "corp", it does not apply to corporations or companies only, but more in general to commercial and economic entities. --Nehwyn 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part of WP:CORP implies that it's rules applies to all commercial and economic entities? Kindly quote the exact line which explicitely states it as such.--Huaiwei 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first line in the page. --Nehwyn 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"a product, company, corporation or other economic entity". Explain in what way is this a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity"?--Huaiwei 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the article "has a net lettable retail floor area of ...". Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to chains. This is a company and the letting of space is economic activity. GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Only major shopping mall serving Jurong East New Town, a major public housing establishment in the western part of densely-populated Singapore. —Sengkang 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, IMM Building is the other major mall in Jurong East. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, oops forgot about it. —Sengkang 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep, mall has a huge ice skating rink and it's one of the very few major malls in Jurong East. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per above Leidiot 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Jurong Entertainment Centre is the first major shopping centre in the West prior to the arrival of Jurong Point, and thus served as the main focal point then. Jurong East Central is the location for the Regional Centre in the Western Region, but the delay in development plans for the area meant the centre remained the sole shopping mall and largest commercial entity there, although it pales in terms of size and tenent mix in comparison to many contemporary malls. Still, this does not mean it has no place wikipedia just because it is past its prime.--Huaiwei 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Huaiwei. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Vsion. SchmuckyTheCat 15:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.--Tdxiang 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, no real reason presented for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 11:24, 15 October 2006
• Delete Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to other businesses. WP:CORP is the relevant standard. There are no citations in the article or above to independent sources to establish that it meets the WP:CORP standards. (I.e., the nomination was exactly a valid reason for deletion.) GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The gist of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is to act against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods. Taking the sentence "a product, company, corporation or other economic entity" literally as meaning every single entity with any remote sense of "economic" activity will result in Human being deleted as well, for who else is responsible for and engages so actively in it? I do not think it that difficult for anyone to take a step back and realise just what is the core intent of wikipolicies and guidelines before attempting to blanket-apply them all over without much consideration for common sense.--Huaiwei 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out to you on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Application_of_this_guideline, your understanding of this particular guideline is fallacious. The gist of WP:CORP is to set notability criteria for economic entities, so as to avoid non-notable economic entities showing up in Wikipedia. There is another guideline which acts, as you say, "against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods", and that is WP:SPAM. --Nehwyn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Huaiwei and other above, the article looks fine to me. RFerreira 00:38, 17 October 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.