Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forestway 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Forestway Shopping Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. At one floor and 50 shops this is a small shopping centre with very routine coverage LibStar (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete fails WP:GNG as per nomination and created by the same user who has created several other articles for similar NSW shopping centres (which have all been subjected to deletion). Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  15:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - The article was created at 8:30am and was nominated at 11am ... All on the same day!, Editors are expected to leave newly created articles for roughly a week before nominating - Nominating 3 hours after creation is just bad faith, Anywho like above this should be allowed to be improved and sourced accordingly. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the article creator has had over 7 days to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You may want to read WP:Potential, not just current state - there is no timelimit for articles, I've asked the editor if they'd work on it. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * certainly the best way you or others could show keep is a demonstration of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor hasn't stated a "keep" so your comment is a non sequitur. I dont' see any evidence of WP:BEFORE D1 in the nomination.  Is there some reason that you haven't prepared the community for a deletion discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * is there a reason you constantly like to demand others to do things your way in WP? LibStar (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * isn't demanding anything ... He's asking a perfectly reasonable question which so far you've answered inadequately. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

in my nomination I said there is routine coverage, and your gnews and gbooks search confirms. my nomination stands. has had a habit of demanding in AfDs because he will do anything to get a keep rather than arguing on actually meeting WP:N. here's another example Articles for deletion/Sturt Mall (3rd nomination). LibStar (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about the sources - It's about you nominating an article within 3 hours of it being created but anyway there's atleast 10 that are usable on Google News and 9 on Google Books. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not call that 10 usable sources. the shopping centre being sold or bought or small one line mentions are rather routine. there's only at least 1 I see as usable. and I would say none of the gbooks hits counts as indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources so it's a case of make the best of what we have, I would suggest withdrawing and adding these sources to the article. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

you miss my point, these sources do not establish notability. and the lack of sources proves it. I'm not withdrawing my nomination. the demands continue...LibStar (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources  . notable ones do. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Davey2010. Sorry but still not convinced that a Speedy Keep is valid for this AFD, given that it has been open for long enough without any effort to provide notability from neither the creator nor anybody else.Ajf773 (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've provided sources however not all may be brilliant - Notabilty is there an keeping the article would mean the creator can carry on sourcing and perhaps find stuff we cannot. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC),


 * none of these facts establish notability The shopping centre was owned by Arndale Property and was part of the chain. It has over 50 stores and was sold to an American company Invesco. There is no significant indepth third party coverage of this centre. It therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article in question has not been touched since creation and that was eight days ago. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * comment read WP:SK, none of the speedy keep scenarios are applicable. Therefore speedy keep is invalid here.  LibStar (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (very) weak keep without prejudice to renomination - Story in the local rag at least hints at GNG. Not quite enough on its own (needs multiple independent), but it at least verifies the basic facts and it strikes me as likely that there would be additional sources available. Tag for refimprove and wait - if not improved in (say) 1 month then by all means renominate. COMMENT - "Speedy keep" is, in this context, only intended for the most blatantly bad-faith, disruptive nominations - this is not an example. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nominating within 3 hours is enough for a speedy keep and AFDs like this have been speedy kept before, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if nominating within 3 hours constituted blatant bad faith (which it doesn't), the subsequent good-faith contributions to the AfD by other editors disallow a speedy-keep close.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yeti. Ironically the time spent by others arguing for a speedy keep (when it doesn't apply in any case) could be spent actually finding significant indepth coverage... makes you wonder if this coverage actually exists. Hence my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominating an article within 3 hours is bad faith, Editors contributing to the article doesn't automatically make ones Keep void,
 * I've found sources which are more than sufficient for this shopping centre - As I said hopping centres don't get much coverage so I would suggest you close this, add the sources and stop wasting everyones time, Might I suggest infuture you nominate articles a week after creation not 3 hours ?, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is stopping you from improving the page yourself? I see this far too often on AFDs where users argue the case for keeping articles by finding any old fluff from a Google search and claiming it as passing notability - yet don't bother actually applying it to the article in question. To pass WP:GNG articles need evidence of it. As of the morning of Nov 29 (here in my part of the world), the only other edit - other than articles initial creation - is the AFD template. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * doing a cursory gnews and gbooks search and suddenly declaring it's notable and the time spent arguing speedy keep instead of performing a deeper search to establish a keep case says it all.  LibStar (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the sources do not establish notability. Routine coverage and in particular the gbooks are mostly 1 line mentions. Keep making demands... keep arguing speedy keep. Your words will not change this or future nomination. Keep making demands... LibStar (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * there was even an attempt to lower the bar of notability just so this article can pass Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources so it's a case of make the best of what we have. Classic. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - (I've collapsed the above as it all became waay too much here) - Well whilst we were all arguing over my glorious Speedy Keep !vote .... the creator hasn't touched the damn article at all, Although I did state there's no timelimit it doesn't mean the creator gets to bugger off and leave it ..... The whole point of my !vote was so that the editor could hurry up and source it but instead they've done nothing, Unfortunately my crappy laptop cannot operate 2 tabs without everything crashing so unfortuntely I can't check the sources but anywy as per &  we may aswell get rid, Ah well remind me never to try & save an article again!. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've collapsed my weak keep !vote up there. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops my apologies, I've hopefully corrected it now. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

*Keep - I have found the source and will keep checking of more sources, it is notable as it is in the busy suburb of Frenchs Forest. --BugMenn (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep It is notable as it is in the busy suburb of Frenchs Forest and I have found the sources. --BugMenn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. not yet notable, like most small shopping centers.  DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you cannot !vote 3 times. The coverage is routine and being in a busy suburb is not a criterion. Whatever you define busy as. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I concur this is trivial and unconvincing with no substance, so WP:NOT clearly applies. SwisterTwister   talk  15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shopping centers are not inherently notable and this one receives no coverage other that routine confirmations that it exists. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2016 (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.