Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Doon 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 06:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod removed by a serial deprodder. This shopping mall cannot be shown to be notable as significant coverage of it likely does not exist in reliable, third-party sources.  Them From  Space  02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable shopping mall. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rescue I think it is more of a stub right now and depending on the actual size might be somewhat notable. Kurt (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't covered in non-trivial secondary sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 05:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never been to Edmonton, and rarely set foot in any mall (ugh). I've no sentimental attachment to the subject of the article or the article's authorship. However... I've no doubt that five years from now, this article will exist despite what may happen in the meantime. Are you sure it won't exist? NODEADLINE. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This mall is notable and there are reliable third-party sources, even if they aren't readily Googleable. Over time, the article will improve and additional references will come; there's no deadline.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, there is no deadline for an article to improve, but articles that do not meet the requirement of referencing non-trivial, third-party sources now are deleted until such sources can be added. Let's see what happens, if reliable coverage can be found before the end of the AfD discussion, I'm sure the article will survive. - 2 ... says you, says me 05:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) If no sources can be found the article should be deleted per WP:V. We have no deadline but that isn't an excuse to leave material that goes against our core policies sit for another few years until someone else decides tackle the issue. We can't just leave unverified articles sitting around, especially when sources have been looked for. Even if the article was properly verified, it would still need to show what makes this particular shopping center notable, as Wikipedia isn't a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. I invite you to try and demonstrate its notability, and I will change my opinion if you do that, but until notability is shown through reliable sources I won't feel comfortable doing so.  Them  From  Space  05:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeat Keep. This was the first mall in Edmonton, and it still has over 100 stores. Are those facts awaiting verification? Notable just with that, with additional notable references likely to come. This is not some corner deli or new box store, but has impacted traffic patterns, environmental issues, taxation, and elections for decades. It seems that most of the argument for deletion is based on Googling and misconceptions about importance needed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me guess....you shop there. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my reasoning is more along the lines of WP:Give an article a chance.
 * Having over 100 stores does not equal notability, notability is being referenced in non-trivial sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mere mentions don't make for notability. There is nothing significant about any coverage I saw. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing but mere mentions, no non-trivial coverage at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely nonnotable - malls like this have to have something special about them to justify an article, and seeing nothing about this that isn't true of a metric quigillion of other malls also DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of sources, regretfully. I scoured a pretty good database for news articles and found nothing non-trivial. Is there another name this mall might be known as? --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no way at all this didn't have significant coverage when it first opened (50s?). A 100+ store mall, come on.  The trivial references make it clear it isn't a hoax and WP:V is met.  That the news articles aren't published on the web is no reason to delete. There is a bit,  and off-line in the Edmonton Journal August 19, 1959.   Hobit (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both sources given are one line mentions, which still do not qualify as non-trivial coverage. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. One does point to the Edmonton Journal article and shows that there was coverage in the 50s.  Sadly that paper only has a 10 year old archive (for a fee).  Do you seriously harbor any doubt that the first mall in the area got significant coverage in the papers?  Hobit (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying about print sources not being online - referencing a book, magazine, or newspaper article with no web based copy is quite normal, and if there's any doubt, the community typically assumes good faith. That assumption, however, only applies in cases where the print source is known to actually have been published, not when sources are speculated. I don't doubt at all that the shopping center in question might have been covered in a newspaper when it opened, the fact remains however, that an actual article or other acceptable non-trivial source needs referenced in order for the inclusion criteria to be met. Whether that source happens to be online, on a microfilm, or in a brick and mortar library archive is notwithstanding. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll disagree. Let me ask again, do you have any doubt there would have been significant coverage of the opening of a 100+ store mall in the 50s?  If so, I can understand asking for deletion.  But this is a case where it is darn obvious (to me) that significant coverage must have existed.  As we can meet WP:V, I don't see a reason to delete what is (again to me) a topic that clear meets WP:N, we just can't find those detailed references. Hobit (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Predicting what newspapers wrote about 50 years ago is pretty haphazard. I know in doing archival research I've sometimes sat down thinking I'd find piles of sources on a topic only to find a 2-sentence reference at best. Newspapers throughout history haven't always run articles about what they'd run nowadays. For example, we assume nowadays that the demolition of a 100-year-old building in an American city, that had been its tallest building for over two decades, would generate lots of newspaper coverage. But in the 1970s, people just didn't see such a move as particularly controversial, and in the case I'm talking about it only warranted a 2-sentence mention in a "business updates" section. And also, I know through experience that when a mall opened in the 1950s and 1960s, the builders would often buy pages of the local newspaper on opening day and run stories about all the technological marvels they'd put into the mall's construction. Clearly promotional in nature, these would be problematic as sources. So it's really best to see what sources we're actually working with before we assume they exist. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that there would have been some news coverage of its opening. I strongly disagree, however, with the claim that this somehow meets the standards for notability. The existence of articles mentioning the existence of a subject does not convey any sort of notability on to it. That's just trivia of only local concern, and, worse, outdated local concern. There needs to be something about the coverage that would indicate that the topic is noteworthy in some way. The standards Hobit is trying to use make no sense for an encyclopedia and specifically are not Wikipedia' standards. This is just wikilawyering. If you think it's notable, PROVE it via our standards, don't just assert that it must be and expect that to fly. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The burden of proof for notability is for those who want to add or keep information in Wikipedia. You can't speculate that there "must have been" coverage at the time of its opening. WP:V doesn't work that way. --  At am a chat 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the links on the rescue tag do indeed provide some sites that can be considered reliable sources that would establish notability, including information relating to the mall's origin. I did find at least several of them, and one who is familiar with this place can add them. Sebwite (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the significant coverage, the one line mentions found in Google Books do not count. WP:N and WP:V establish that Wikipedia has articles on subjects that are notable through non-trivial secondary sources, not subjects that might be notable based on speculated sources. Some of the discussion at this AfD has shown a misunderstanding of the referencing and notability policies. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article does not show any cause for notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: per WP:MANYLINKS, 8 articles that are not lists link to this page within the article's text itself and not via a template or hatnote: King Edward Park, Edmonton, Bonnie Doon, Edmonton, Idylwylde, Edmonton, Strathearn, Edmonton, Holyrood, Edmonton, Southgate Centre, Kenilworth, Edmonton, Strathcona County Transit. Deleting this article would create red links in all these articles. Sebwite (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (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.