Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suntec City Mall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suntec City Mall

Shopping mall. The only claim to notability, being the largest in Singapore, has expired since a larger one was built. --Nehwyn 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any source to that claim? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Suntec is the second largest mall in Singapore and houses the world's largest fountain. It was in the same complex as where the IMF/World Bank meetings were held. It has international mention by several sources and definitely notable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As written below, the largest fountain claim is contested, and no independent source has still been found to resolve it. As for the Singapore 2006 event, according to its own article, that has been hosted in the nearby Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (built by the same company, but not a mall). Any source on the fact that it was specifically the mall, and not the congress centre, that hosted the World Bank meetings? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The article you mention states that a drop in sales occurred during the Singapore 2006 event due to security restrictions because of the meetings going on nearby. Hardly a claim to notability per se. --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous. This is the first afd I've seen, where the nomination statement itself prove that the subject is notable. --Vsion 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I meant to say that currently there is no notability claim, although it may have been notable in the past (when it held the "title" of largest mall). :) --Nehwyn 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that many hold by a "once notable, always notable" attitude. Certainly, most guidelines seem to take that for granted. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Any specific statement on that? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per diablo.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Terrnece and Mailer diablo. Wow, finally a mall that has something resembling a plausible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible withdraw AfD: It has been brought to attention that this venue holds the world's largest fountain. This is more than an acceptable claim to notability. The article makes no mention of that, so in its current form is not notable; however, were that fact to be added to it, I would happily withdraw this AfD. I have tried Googling for it, but the claim seems to be contested by another fountain in Illinois, and the Guinness page about the fountain is no longer supported by the official Guinness of Records website (Google has a cache copy). Anyone with the actual book able to help? --Nehwyn 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Singapore Book of Records (2005) still assert this as world's largest. [2] - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, in a Singapore vs USA contested record, the fact that the Singapore book of Records supports Singapore is not really a surprise. Any independent source? --Nehwyn 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per above. --- RockMFR 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a silly nom. · XP · 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep; Chinese: 坚决保留; Hokkien: Mai4 dir3 siow2 lah4. —Sengkang 02:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, do write your motivations in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the Singapore 2006 page, that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 11:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, asserts its notability well enough. It seems that the nominator has been trying to get Singapore shopping mall articles deleted. Do I smell WP:POINT here? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I smell something too...But I'd rather assume good faith here. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated them all together because they were brought to my attention all together after I nominated one. As for the rest, I too smell something fishy: it seems to me that far too many of the "keep" comments come from Singaporean editors, and it is conceivable that they may have contacted one another to try and lobby the debate page... although again, WP:AGF applies, so let's assume that is not the case. --Nehwyn 15:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And so I suppose you expect most of the "Keep" comments to come from Italians, for something less fishy? It is a no-brainer why most of comments are coming from Singapore. And if you wondering why most of them are "Keep" votes, have you considered the fact that not every mall in Singapore has got an article? How sure are you that I will not question an article about a truly insignificant Singaporean mall?--Huaiwei 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would prefer if comments on the inclusion or deletion criteria for any given article were not based on the editors' area of residence, but only on the article itself. For an example of what kind of reasoning I'd prefer not to see, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Point Shopping Centre, where the deletion of the article has been defined by one editor as "a great insult to all Singaporeans". I wish this kind of reasoning would not become a factor in Wikipedia debates. My concern is not really that being a resident in the area might colour a single editor's judgement on differentiating between local notability and Wikipedia notability (although that is certainly possible); my concern is that some editors with a common interest or characteristic (in this case, residence) may have rallied privately to "lobby" the debate in disregard to the Wikipedia public. But again, let's assume good faith and deem it not the case. --Nehwyn 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most ridiculous nominations I have yet seen. And I do also sense something fishy in this multi-nomination of Singaporean malls on no other criteria than physical size. So VivoCity, a mall a week old, gets to be kept while all other malls who were around far longer and made a far bigger social impact gets deleted?--Huaiwei 14:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, there's no way that only 1 Singaporean mall can have an article at any given moment. That's certainly not the case with New York, or any other major city. - SpLoT 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because any arguments otherwise border on ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazing Race 3 and Singapore 2006 to its name. Ridiculous to favour VivoCity, which only has size to its name, over this. Could be expanded, though. - Ouishoebean 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed for the AR3 mention, but as far as the Singapore 2006 page, please note that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Suntec City Mall is one of the most recognisable retail icon in Singapore. Apparently this nomination is done without familiarity with Singapore, above all, the mall is well-visited by tourists due to the tax rebate scheme that made the venue popular among visitors. As per abovementioned, the mall is noteable internationally, represented in a couple of advertising regimes to promote Singapore as a tourist destination and retail haven. The corporate site: Suntec City Mall. Absurb nomination. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Highly notable.--Tdxiang 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hildanknight has withdrawn his Keep vote. The original vote and reason for withdrawal are available in the page history.
  • To substantiate my post earlier: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), a Singaporean government statutory board cites that Suntec City is one of the largest commercial developments in Singapore to date at [3]. Suntect REIT, developer of the Suntec chain of commercial complexes, cites that Suntec City Mall is Singapore's largest shopping mall at [4], further stating that Strong branding of the Suntec name and Fountain of Wealth is recognized domestically and internationally, and Fountain of Wealth attracts half a million visitors a year, while quality tenant base including oreign institutions, prominent local corporations and multinational companies provides enhanced stability of rental income. The Mall along with the exhibition complex, was awarded two FIABCI Prix d' Excellence awards for excellence in all aspects of real estate development (Overall winner and Commercial / Retail winner) in 1999 and the Outstanding Contribution to Tourism award in 1998 from Singapore Tourism Board. The site too states that the mall is a one-stop shopping, fashion, dining, recreation and entertainment destination that attracts about 24 million visitors a year. Notable enough for you? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Now this is what a Wikipedia reference should look like. Kudos to Silvester. The Suntec reference cannot be considered "independent", but the URA reference and the awards definitely are. Personally, I think that if the AR3 and this one are added to the article, that would be referencing it enough for a speedy keep. =) --Nehwyn 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that Nehwyn considers a Singaporean statutory board acceptably "independent", while a publication called the Singapore Book of Records (2005) is not.--Huaiwei 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the URA is a governmental entity, not part of Suntec, and thus considered independent. Suntec, having built the venue, cannot be considered an "independent source" about the venue itself. As far as the Fountain record goes, on the other hand, the Singapore Book of Records statement currently is contested, and the Guinness World Records (generally considered the standard authority on world records) has withdrawn mention of the Fountain of Wealth as the world's largest fountain about a week ago. They might in fact be checking the claim, for all we know. As soon as the record is re-listed by Guinness, I'd say that will solve the problem. --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Still, even though this entry has been withdraw by Guinness, it once appeared in the book for a period of time. Even if it is disputed, the fountain is still notable, and is still the largest outside North America. Is that notable for you? Singapore Book of Records is an independent source and what's wrong with it? --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't get us started on that.  ;-) --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being the largest mall in Singapore is a valid claim for notability; this nomination is a bit dumbfounding. Yamaguchi先生 10:55, 15 October 2006
Note: Suntec City is not the largest mall in Singapore; that claims does not apply here. --Nehwyn 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw deletion nomination - Given the fact that deletion debate has brought forward new sources, allowing for sufficient improvement of the article to the point that it now provides satisfactory evidence of notability, in the absence of further dispute, as the original nominator I change my stance to keep and request early closure of this debate page. =) --Nehwyn 17:41, 16 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.