Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Village 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Forest Lake Village Shopping Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Clearly fails criteria for shopping malls: significant coverage in reliable sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: A search of the Australian Newspaper database found 161 results for "Forest Lake Village Shopping Centre". References come from South West News (Brisbane, Australia) (128), Courier Mail, The/Sunday Mail, The/QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) (24), Southern Star, The (Brisbane, Australia) (3), Ipswich News (Brisbane, Australia) (2), Albert & Logan News (Brisbane, Australia) (1), South-East Queensland Tourism (Brisbane, Australia) (1), Logan West Leader (Brisbane, Australia) (1), Queensland Regional Publications (Australia) (1).  This is a number of different publications. Articles deal with several things related to the shopping centre to make it not one event, including an art exhibit by local residents, development issues around the mall, upgrades made to shops in the mall including Target done to the tune of $30 million AUD, and people getting sick at the mall.  There are several articles that specifically talk about the mall on its own, that provide substantial coverage of the mall in the article.  Mall passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as about these references, can you provide links please? Till I Go Home (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These are available on a pay for database that I have access to via my university. Please subscribe. Sadly, not comprehensive as many newspaper are missing and there is nothing on it from pre 2000. --LauraHale (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per references from LauraHale. Finding relevant coverage is tricky because the name Forest Lake (much like the suburb itself) is so generic, but as the focal point for that community there are sure to be many, many dead tree sources out there.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep per the sources found by LauraHale, just because you can't view them online doesn't mean that you can't use them. Bidgee (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually all three editors who have voted keep above have failed to provide evidence of the mall passing WP:GNG. These references that LauraHale provided are from local newspapers etc. so no GNG threshold has been met. WP:ORG clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". And also to Bidgee, never did I say that because that I cannot view them online means that I cannot use them. The discussion here is about the availability of reliable, secondary, independent sources with substantial coverage of the topic, which "Forest Lake Village" clearly does not have. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Courier Mail and Sunday Mail are statewide newspapers with some of the highest circulations in Australia. They are not "local newspapers".  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
 * At this rate they will want international sources, then I challenge them to provide "non-local" sources to other malls they think are notable.... I bet they will have a hard time finding them. As stated in another AfD, this is looking like a campaign to delete articles that a small group of editors don't like. Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is asking for international sources. How about a source from SMH, news.com.au, Adelaide Now or The Daily Telegraph? As said previously on multiple occasions, local coverage does not help establish notability. See WP:CORPDEPTH. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake, Australia isn't like the US. Sources from other sources no doubt exist but are unsearchable (ie: Newsbank, Google News ect) and would need someone to painfully search for them via mirofilm. Please stop over using and abusing a policy guildline in which you have your own interpretation on, WP:GNG is what is used and it doesn't prevent local sources being used for notability. If you don't like WPGNG, go and get it changed via a consensus. Bidgee (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not the only thing which should be taken into consideration. That is why SNGs are there in the first place, like WP:ORG etc. which brings me to my point that local coverage doesn't make a topic notable. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG appears to trump it in this argument. There are three keep votes.  You aren't really going to make a convincing argument to Australian participants on this article.  Perhaps, if your goal is to get us to change our minds, you could try a different approach, spend the money and gain access to Australian sources, and learn more about our wonderful country? :)  We wouldn't have this communication problem then, and you could make more compelling arguments. :) --LauraHale (talk)
 * Well I do live in "our wonderful country"... (Sydney) but that's OK, this is a discussion and that's the whole point of this AfD, to discuss whether it meets whichever guideline. And FYI, there is no quorum in AfD. :) Till I Go Home (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the discussion bit is getting a bit heated, with what appears to be entrenched positions. :) If you're hoping to change the three keeps to delete, you might want consider a different approach as the current one is not working.  I feel it meets WP:GNG.  I don't think other notability guidelines trump WP:GNG.  You haven't offered me a compelling reason why it should.  You haven't convinced me these sources don't work for WP:GNG. Do you have another argument that would change my position? --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2012 (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.