Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capalaba Central 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   no consensus; default to KEEP. -  Philippe 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Capalaba Central Shopping Centre

 * ( [ 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 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete It is a set of stores... That you might have a selection on shoes or washing machimes does not give notability. Yikes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 4 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) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 4 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.  Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing.  And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) Finally, it reads like an advertisement, referring for example to "our Customer Service desk". brianlucas (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 01:35, 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 ) 05:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, 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. brianlucas (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely! The section says the sources must exist. But it also indicates that 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. 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have struck my delete per improvements done by User:Bilby  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think that an admin should delete all these mall articles, that are in AFD, right away, because there is no way that the AFDs will end as keep. They are all non-notable. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not really one of the most significant shopping centres, it does seem to be reasonably large, and the constant changing hands managed to get it a reasonable amount of coverage. I've cleaned it up a bit to try and address the concerns, adding some references as I went along, but the biggest problem seemed to be copyvio (which should be fixed now). My feeling is that if anyone cared to do some real research they would dig up a few more good refs, especially if they looked closer to when it was opened. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Reasonably large does not mean notable. Only reliable sources can show that, and this article has none to indivcate notability over any other mall.Yobmod (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, I should have been clearer. I've added some coverage from reliable sources, and expect there to be more (I had hundreds of hits in NewsBank). In particular, the article in The Australian was quite extensive about the Shin Yen purchase. In reference to other malls, I'm not convinced that this one is particularly significant (although the constant changing hands is a tad unusual given the short time that it has existed), but that leads me to suspect that many shopping centres of a reasonable size are going to have had sufficient coverage to pass WP:N. Probably because large centres are very important to the regional communities, and that they tend to attract large scale investments, both of which lead to non-trivial coverage in newspapers (and some local histories). - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bilby's comment above. Melburnian (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as article is now well-sourced and notability is proven. - Dravecky (talk) 14:50, 7 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.