Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booval Fair


 * 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Booval Fair

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

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA,, who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why.  (And I think 'cruddy article' would also be justification for deletion.) brianlucas (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Centro Shopping Centres in Australia where the inclusion has merit and context. Delete nothing notable about a shoping ceter... maybe a nice place to shop, but nothing notable about underwear on sale or dishwashers half/off. Its WP:ADVERT and not even good at that.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Whether it's a poorly written article that reads like a bill of lading or a future FAC doesn't matter. Notability means we don't delete. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "general notability guideline" is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article contains no references to any sources whatsoever -- no coverage has been demonstrated. Therefore it fails the notability test. (And an article from a local paper that merely confirms the existence of the shopping centre is not notable either.  To be notable, the subject must be special in some way that distinguishes it from the masses of other shopping centres like it.) brianlucas (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. The guideline says that the sources must exist; not that they must be in the article. Your reading comprehension is fail. Rebecca (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how do you know if they exist or not? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that this mall is more notable than the many other malls? Do you think that every mall should have an article? Do you have any reliable sources that you can add to the article? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 13:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do have reliable sources, do they show why the mall is more notable than other malls? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A non-notable mall. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebecca is right that the section says the sources must exist. But she forgets that the notability must be shown in those Reliable Sources... having adverts and blurbs in such sources do not create a notability. The article must assert a notability that can then be sourced... not the other-way-round. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. There is nothing notable about it. Fails WP:Corp}}. Fails [[WP:N. Smacks highly of WP:SPAM  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it doesn't appear to exist. The refs that are available aren't independent of the subject - that is, they all appear to be sources related to the promotion of the centre as a whole or individual shops.  The only news ref was about petty crime relating to the centre. Murtoa (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication of notability. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete = there's a bit of information around about the shopping centre, but (having searched the main Australian news databases that I can access) I can't find any significant coverage for the last ten years. Given that the centre was built in 1969, there is still the possibility that there may be sufficient older sources to establish notability, but I wasn't ably to dig up anything worthwhile. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are found to show why this mall is more notable than any of the other bazillion in the world.Yobmod (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (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.