Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Tuggerah

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 No consensus, as usual - crz crztalk 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Tuggerah

Westfield Tuggerah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod of a non-notable Australian shopping mall. Article has no sources affirming notability per WP:CORP. Elonka 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Its a Westfield. Its a shopping centre. Its in Tuggerah. Not much more can be said. Delete -- saberwyn 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Addition - Merge to Tuggerah article as second option. -- saberwyn 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is in contradiction of WP:NOT#DIR & WP:LOCAL. Todd661 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps redirect to Tuggerah article. Todd661 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. 216 Google News Archives results [1] shows that quite a bit more can be said about it. We don't need a list of stores. It is at least worthy of mention in the Tuggerah article.Capitalistroadster 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, almost all "sources" on Google News mention the mall as a location in which something is happening or the like, they are not about it. Almost all are from the same paper. None that I looked at so far (granted, didn't read all 216), show any indication that this would pass WP:CORP-the requirement is for non-trivial mention, these mentions are trivial. Seraphimblade 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs to be expanded upon, some photos perhaps, more on the history.Firelement85 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and cleanup, but get rid of the list of stores. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. Failing all that, merge to the Tuggerah, New South Wales article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly notable shopping centre nominated in bad faith. Rebecca 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Accusing someone of bad faith without presenting reason or evidence might be considered an example of bad faith in itself, or a personal attack. Have you a reason to believe that the nominator was not acting in good faith? It certainly seems that there is a legitimate controversy over notability, and lack of sourcing is a valid concern. Seraphimblade 10:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per Capitalistroadster. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, large mall notable to the local population. Get rid of the list of stores. bbx 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources cited to show notability. Edison 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Shouldn't all these delete votes be merge votes at the very least? Even WP:LOCAL advocates that. Really, I don't see why these malls are being brought to AFD at all - they should all be getting merged somewhere per WP:LOCAL or kept. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (as nominator). The article has no sources, and no indication of notability. With a complete lack of references, this article as it stands is in complete violation of the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I am stunned that anyone with any kind of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, would say "keep" on it. Is there some kind of bizarre agenda going on here, to include unreferenced articles on Wikipedia? --Elonka 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To me, this falls under the heading of something so benign that being militant about sources is unwarranted. Compare to Florida State Road 579. It's only sources are maps. The maps show it exists. So what's the problem? Are you saying the mall doesn't exist? Should we provide a Google Map for proof? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • See the policy at WP:NOT. Just because something exists, does not mean there should be a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is neither a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a travel guide. --Elonka 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Then you better get to deleting a whole boatload of articles on malls and schools and roads and libraries and buildings, etc., etc. Should keep you busy for the next year or so. That'll teach 'em. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Something drawing in 216 Google News hits is obviously notable, and there isn't any reason not to accomodate our readers with an article somewhere on the topic. Is there a reason malls are being targeted right now? I would think that most every major mall (not shopping center) would easily qualify under WP:CORP and this one without a doubt meets our corp guidelines. Silensor 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe mention in the Tuggerah article. No real evidence of notability here. Lankiveil 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete: List of stores shouldn't be there, and no notability. No evidence in the article that there's anything notable to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. I also see no evidence that there will be enough information for it to get past being a stub. The Google News hits are mostly press releases, santa will be there, stores are opening, shoppers ignore construction, drop off food while at the mall, Lone Star steakhouse for the urban cowboy in you, etc, etc. Basically fluff from tiny local papers that get served up by an online service for a few bucks apiece. As mentioned, what remains can be merged and a redirect given. jesup 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, having lived near this center, and knowing how it is the most major shopping center between Sydney and Newcastle, as well as apparent notability from the publicity it gets from being the largest and most popular shopping center in the Central Coast region, I believe that this is notable. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've just added six references, including one from The Age and two from some of the biggest Unions in Australia, which hopefully demonstrate notability regarding the death of a worker that sparked union protests and made it into interstate papers. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Westfield Tuggerah has a far greater impact on the economy of Tuggerah than WBJ does on the economy of Bondi Junction, and it was very recently retained. People up and down the central coast travel to Westfield Tuggerah, other Westfields service fairly local (if large populaion) communities - how far do people travel specifically to go to Westfield Bondi Junction?

Garrie 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - per GarrieIrons and Daniel. The references added by Daniel Bryant make this article more than notable and defeat arguments based on lack of notability. I've never been to the shopping centre in question, but I have driven past it, and it is one of the largest shopping centres in the Central Coast (it would vie with Erina Fair for THE largest one), and is a notable contribution to the Central Coast community. JROBBO 02:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- If an obscure suburban Glasgow railway station can become Wikipedia's millionth article (and be turned into a respectable "good"-class article), then we have room for a major, regionally important shopping centre.--LeflymanTalk 08:01, 26 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.