Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capalaba Park 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Capalaba Park 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 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:53, 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)
 * Comment. An article on Yu Feng or its owner may be more appropriate than individual mall articles. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Withdrawn in view of state award (see below). WWGB (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete Never asserts notability, and has some random, pointless information. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a regional shopping centre. I added a reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * question is there some reason The Koala Action Group is relevant here? DGG (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea either. Like I said, not great article. Still a notable place though. Rebecca (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. brianlucas (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article needs a good rewrite, but I think it (barely) passed notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a shopping center for goodness sake... not a national landmark. Are we going to have articles about every mall now? Oops, I see more below. Yikes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:43, 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)
 * Weak Keep, appears to meet notability requirements through third-party coverage, although only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep I agree a rewrite is in order. Google turns up enough hits to pass WP:N, if barely.  Javier  MC  10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Hits don't show notability... only shows how many people are looking for a new washer/dryer combo or a new pair of shoes. This article most definitely does not meet the criteria of Notability (organizations and companies), which states: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". I do not care how many blurbs you come across praising its many stores, that does not make it notable. I have yet to see even one reliable source given that directly shows notability... and my own searches I have found only that it exists. THAT is not notable per WP:RS .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, what is notable about this mall? And how do the keep voters know it? cos it sure isn't sourced here. Having both a subway AND a McDonalds is not a criterion for notability - this sounds like every mall i've ever seen.Yobmod (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - actually "not to call an ambulance before notifying ..." is a notable aspect of this mall as it goes counter to most rational thinking. Although cleanup is in order. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CORP, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What has a Malls Policy got to do with "Trivial or incidental"?!?!?! There is nothing trivial about delaying/denying EM Services to a patient. PS It is also actually a Award winner. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have found a source that expressly shows notability. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have withdrawn my delete vote.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:40, 6 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.