Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Australia by size


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of shopping centres in Australia by size

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just a list with no reliable sources, parts of the list also contains original research. Bidgee (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Bidgee (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a possiblity that this could be sourced if the GLA can be verified through the International Council of Shopping Centers website. I don't see how any of this is original research. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I find the article interesting and relevant, provided it can be properly sourced. This Sydney Morning Herald article lists the biggest 8 shopping centres, which verifies the main ones.-- Lester  03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Every entry in the list is inherently notable because they have WP articles and I presume those articles meet WP policies. The idea that this list has no reliable sources is not justified by the nonminator.  What sources are unreliable?--Mike Cline (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the sources? Most if not all of the Westfield shopping centres are wrongly sourced or are original research. I don't even think the article contains third-party reliable sources. List of Shopping Centres in Australia by Gross Leasable Area section mostly doesn't have sources. Bidgee (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see original research here. There are two key pieces of information in this list: Area and Number of Stores.  A random review of the individual articles reflects that the data used in the table accurately reflects the data in the individual articles.  If the article on an individual mall is accurate and correctly sourced, then how can the data from the article used in the list be considered original research or unsourced?  If the data is wrong, either in the list or the individual article, then it needs to be corrected, but should not be grounds for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems you haven't looked at the sources! Westfield Parramatta store numbers with in it's own article and list is cited with http://www.westfield.com/parramatta/ourstores/ which doesn't even have the total stores the shopping centre complex has and if the person who added the content counted the stores listed within the sites Category then it's OR (Since there is no total on that site). All of the Westfield articles and in the list a cited with an unreliable source and is clearly OR. Bidgee (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Trivia based on OR and primary sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- probably not original research, but definitely synthesis at the least. And it's an accumulation of trivia. Reyk  YO!  14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sourcing in a few places is a bit shabby, but that is an argument for fixing it up, not deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep per Lankiveil. WP:NOT suggests that there is room to keep this. It is not a trivial topic. JRG (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are over 40 references, which makes it well sourced (even though it can be better). I don't see where the original research claim comes from though. Tavix (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you even look at the sources? All of the Westfield states nothing about store numbers (Clearly OR hidden by a fake source). See my concerns above. Bidgee (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You may certainly argue about the accuracy, and precision of the sourcing, but the statement All of the Westfield states nothing about store numbers is entirely inaccurate. Here's the Westfield details on Parramatta.  I think every Westfield property has this level of data available. It is far more productive to seek reasons to include rather than to exclude.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe be true and sourced, but trival and of no value. We66er (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument for deletion that I find the weakest is the Trivia claim. WP in WP:HTRIVIA states the following in its first sentence: Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important. However, since Wikipedia consists of articles, we can be more specific — trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to.  Whose to say this information isn't important to someone interested in shopping malls in Australia.  The content is clearly relevant to shopping malls and Australia.  Finally, even the Triva article in WP states: Trivia (singular: trivium) are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information.  Again, whose to say this information is unimportant to to someone interested in malls in Australia?.  I personally think Using the Trivia argument in a deletion debate is pure and unadulterated POV with no basis in fact.  There are 1000s of articles in WP that are absolutedly unimportant to me and the knowledge I am interested in, but I would never argue they were TRIVAL.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC points 2, 3 and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 17 September 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.