Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johor Bahru City Square

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus

Johor Bahru City Square

 * Del. Non-notable shopping center building. Mikkalai 23:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  00:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Rje 00:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's about time deletionists gave reasons for wanting articles deleted that actually bore some relation to the deletion policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It is about a real thing, which it is possible to verify, and forms part of "human knowledge". This is not a paper encyclopaedia, so we can potentially include all knowledge. This is a wonderful and inspiring sentiment. Trying to cut it down to one's personal taste is not.Dr Zen 05:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And by wanting this article to remain one could argue that you too are using personal taste in your judgement? I would like to think Wikipedia is democratic enough to allow dissenting voices to be heard, this is afterall Votes for Deletion not Votes for Retention. Megan1967 01:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's both, Megan. It's where deletionists try to enforce their personal taste, and those who want a broad encyclopaedia attempt to influence the community not to permit them. If you'll note, I'm not suggesting deletionists should not vote, only that they should give reasons, as they are asked to do, that show why the article should be deleted according to the deletion policy. "Not notable" is not in the policy, Megan.Dr Zen 01:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * One could also say: "It's where inclusionists try to enforce their personal view of Wikipedia as being a repository of all factual information, however miniscule and unimportant that information might be on those who wish to preserve Wikipedia as something that is still recognizably an encyclopedia." Neither side is evil, they just have different views of what Wikipedia is/should be.
 * On notability: of course it is a valid reason for motivating a deletion. In addition to there being ample precedents of articles being deleted for this reason, point 17 of "What Wikipedia articles are not" clearly states that "The people who have biographies here should be important or otherwise notable for some reason." And I would like somebody to explain to me why being "important and notable" should then also not applies to fictional characters, beasts, weapons, etc. as well as to real-life things such as schools, malls, buildings, etc.
 * In addition, even if it wasn't covered by the above, "What Wikipedia articles are not" also clearly states that the list given is not exhaustive, but gives only the items on which there are consensus. Nowhere in the procedure does it state that other reasons that do not correspond 100% with the currently listed points cannot be given as a motivation for deletion, as long as they fall within the (admittedly broad) categories of: No potential to become encyclopedic, Original research, Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases, Vanity page, Advertising or other spam, Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. "Non-notability" of a person, object, etc. is a perfectly valid interpretation of "No potential to become encyclopedic".
 * So, please debate each article on its own merits and don't browbeat people who use a motivation on VfD that you don't agree with by using the statement "it isn't in the policy" - there is ample room in the policy to permit non-notability being used as a motivation for VfD-ing an article. Elf-friend 21:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm browbeating no one. I try to form a consensus by discussion. That discussion should be guided by the policy. It's perfectly acceptable to suggest that deletionists should give reasons that are coherent with the policy for getting rid of articles. The policy clearly is not deletionist and is not in favour of losing information. "Notable for some reason" is extremely broad, Elf-friend. Even if it did cover nonpersons, which it clearly does not, since the mention of notability is only in the section on biographies, "Notable by reason of being a mall used by hundreds of thousands" would cover it. I don't know of any definition of "encyclopaedic" that demands "notability" of inclusions in an encyclopaedia, and certainly none that suggests that "notability" has a particular level. Our own policy wisely doesn't set any particular bar. The page in question in fact suggests that articles should include what readers would expect to find under the heading of the article. If I search for Johor Bahru City Square, what do I expect to find? According to you, nothing. I expect it to be beneath notice. That's a very personal view, but this is not an encyclopaedia for you or for me. It's for everyone. I think you should only vote that an article is "not notable" if it is truly your belief that no one, or at the least, a vanishingly small number of people, would look up its title and expect to find something.Dr Zen 05:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Public facilities are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Keep, obviously. --Centauri 06:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So are public toilets but that doesn't mean there should be an article on every public toilet. Megan1967 01:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A public toilet or a pizza hut or any fast-food restaurant should not be compared with a notable office building in the hub of a metropolitian city like Johor Bahru. Please, give respect to the status of the article. Chan Han XiangChan Han Xiang 10:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Inherently not. Shall I write an article about every Pizza Hut place? About every street in every village? The same logic as with people. Some notable, others not. Anyway, there is some zen in Dr Zen's. And there is another way to deal with this. Changing my vote.Mikkalai 07:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Inherently affirmative. Just because you don't want to know about every Pizza Hut in existence doesn't mean it is not a valid topic of study. If the analysis of history shows us nothing else it is that all sorts of apparently irrelevant minutiae can become immensely relevant over time and when viewed by the right people in the right context.--Centauri 22:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", just because it exists does not mean that it should be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. See point 7 What Wikipedia is not. The argument that every piece of detail including irrelevant detail should be included, is against Wikipedia policy. Megan1967 00:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * View Point If you write every notable building in the Johor Bahru article, there will come to a point when you have to condense the article. This will result in the re-creation of such articles.

This city square article has a lot of shopping centres, and it is a notable 50-story building with a lot of offices, half as notable as the petronas twin towers.

I also agree with Zen to keep. I write this so that people can get a bigger view of Johor Bahru. What encyclopedias are for? Let people to have more knowledge about notable places and things. This is surely notable enough to be an article, as I recently noticed that it even have an website.

User:Chan Han Xiang


 * Merge and redirect to Johor Bahru.Mikkalai 07:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge to Johor Bahru and delete. Significant only as a part of the local landscape - Skysmith 11:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into Johor Bahru Icundell 11:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into Johor Bahru. Redirect-ify or delete this entry, as long as the information remains. iMeowbot~Mw 11:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. Nothing to distinguish this from any other mall. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete This is once again, let's name it for what it is, vandalisme by author. This page was vfded at Votes for deletion/City Square. The author once again ignores the community. He did it yesterday by recreating Medical Specialist Centre against vfd conclusion. He did it again Taman Johor Jaya by riding against vfd conclusions. Gtabary 12:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't really a mall.  It's the central square of the second largest city in Malaysia.   Practically every city and town on the planet have at least one central square, mall, place.  But it doesn't follow automatically from the size of the city that its central square is notable.  I have no way to know whether this case is notable, since the article does not say.  In fact, all the article tells me is that Johor Hahru has a city square, which I could have guessed.   The article doesn't tell anyone anything that he didn't already know before he clicked on the link to the article.  If there is anything to say about them at all, it makes more sense that central city locations are documented in the articles about the cities, unless they have notability beyond that of the city itself, or the article about the city has grown too long.   --BM
 * Comment: I'm more inclined to the 'mall' hypothesis, as their web site seems to indicate. Kappa 13:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete as re-creation of previously VfD'd article under a slightly different name. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gordon, the content added in has a potential to have information that is very different from the old outlook. What's wrong about this article? Furthermore, it is a very tall building with lots of offices and malls, like the structure of Taipei 101 and Petronas Twin Towers, except it is not that big. Chan Han XiangChan Han Xiang 10:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with this article is that the information is better served in the main article. It has a context and point there, and adds local color.  By the way, Chan Han Xiang, there's a RfC on you.  You might want to stop by and defend yourself. hfool/Wazzup? 03:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete for recreation of previously deleted content. It's time for the inclusionists to go over to Everything2 or Wikinfo, if they get upset that other people have standards.  Donut shops affect thousands of lives.  Pay telephones can be the only ones for miles.  The sewer cap could be very near dozens of important stores.  The things every place has are not encyclopedic content.  Only the things that stand out from the others are encyclopedic.  Otherwise, go to Mapquest if you want to know the main drag of a city, go to the county courthouse if you want to find out how many students go to the high school.  Geogre 04:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge to Johor Bahru, with potential to spin it out to an article when there is enough content. I can imagine that this shopping center might be worthy of an article, but this has better chances of expanding as part of an article someone would be likely to look up. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Listen up, Guys! I have a new suggestion. It is very hard to merge with the Johor Bahu article. Why don't instaed add the content into Shopping centres of Johor Bahru and expand from there? I think that is better than merging with Johor Bahru since other city articles never had one. User:Chan Han Xiang 16:26 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * What is so hard about it? Just add a Landmarks section to the end of the article and  mention it.   The article is still short.    If the editors Johor Bahru don't think it is important enough to be mentioned, then that is good enough reason to delete a separate article.  An article dedicated to a list of shopping centers in one city is not good idea.   Every city on the planet has shopping centres.   People shop.   Would you want an article for the shopping centers for each of tens of thousands of cities in the world?   Wikipedia is not a shopping center directory.  --BM 13:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Either merge or keep. Do not destroy this information.  GRider\talk 23:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. No apparent valid reason for deletion given. Dan100 11:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete' or change Wikipedia's tag line from "The Free Encyclopedia" to "The Free Miscellany of Information" Elf-friend 21:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Johor Bahru as a local landmark. I am a Johor local and I agree that we have to look at the bigger picture. Shahirshamsir 22:20 GMT, 1 Jan 2005
 * Delete. Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - SimonP 16:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)