Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Australia by size (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The general consensus is that this list serves a useful encyclopedic purpose. Some argued that this article constitutes unacceptable synthesis or is redundant to the list of shopping centres in Australia, but these arguments did not gain consensus. Deryck C. 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

List of shopping centres in Australia by size
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list has become a mismatch of verified and unverified information measured using different standards, WP:SYNTHESISED into one. Unless the ranking(s) can be attributed to an external source, I beleive this page to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge the idea is encyclopedic enough and the lists are not so bad. But as you say there are problems that need fixing, but not so bad as to require deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A sortable table by area or shops in another article would meet the purpose of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete List of the largest shopping centres in Australia might be an encyclopaedic article but this one has no clear criteria for inclusion. The lead states that it is a list of "major shopping centres" but what exactly defines a "major" shopping centre? The article is more a directory of some of the shopping centres than anything else. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasons for deletion are trivial. —Pengo 10:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure asking that for a list or ranking be referenced to an external party is not unreasonable. At the moment, editors are just adding centres at their own will making their own rankings. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Reasons for deletion are trivial" is not a cogent argument. The nom obviously didn't think the reasons were trivial and I have to agree that asking for sources to justify inclusion is most definitely not a trivial request. WP:V is one of our core policies. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Its a list of blue-linked articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a cogent argument for retention. Notability is not inherited. Just because some notable shopping centres are linked, doesn't make this subject notable. There are plenty of non-notable shopping centres that would warrant inclusion in the article so really, blue links are completely irrelevant. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CSC clause #1. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CSC explains why lists are written. It is not a justification for keeping a list. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hopelessly unmaintained and unreliable. Redundant with List of shopping centres in Australia. That list could include size, and in sortable tables. Redirect, keeping history for possible merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep In accord with the emerging consensus above, IMO, the valid policy and guideline issues here are better handled under WP:Editing policy than under WP:Deletion policy.  There is no history on the talk page of editorial concerns with the article.  AfD admins and AfD volunteers are not responsible to fix content problems on Wikipedia, nor is an AfD a valid reason to improve an article.  A valid reason to improve the article is WP:LISTN and WP:CSC#Lead.  I also suggest that content contributors consider the redirect suggestion above.  The talk page provides a source that could be added to the lede.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is hopelessly unmaintained. The content is grossly inaccurate, noting the fact change continuously.  The talk page is never read. It is abandoned. And the whole thing is a content fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless your intent is to !vote "Redirect with salt", you are arguing that the problems here should be handled with WP:Editing policy, and thus we are agreeing. As for "hopelessly unmaintained", I find this puzzling when I count 35 edits to the article this year before the Afd notice.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is asking AfD admins and AfD volunteers to fix content problems. The source on the talk page is 8 years old and hopelessly out of date, so it's not suitable for the lead. WP:CSC#Lead addresses the lead section only. Improving the lead doesn't help the rest of the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a debate club. Your !vote and that of the nomination trace all of your concerns back to the lede.  I agreed with those concerns, and provided support for content contributors to work on the problem; while encouraging those content contributors to support our policies and guidelines.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My !vote was not limited to the lead. I also expressed concern that the article is a directory more than anything else. The nomination doesn't even mention the lead. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Couldn't List of shopping centres in Australia include this information?  It seems completely redundant.  Are we going to make a separate article for every sortable parameter in a table? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NRP has hit the nail on the head. There are two tables in the article up for deletion, maybe include the top 10 of each of those in the other article. There's no need for this list.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an option but then we're setting an arbitrary limit based on a single criteria. A shopping centre doesn't have to have a million shops just to be a major centre. A much smaller centre that draws customers from 150km away can be just as "major" a centre as one with 200 shops catering mainly for customers from surrounding suburbs. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge anything verifiable to List of shopping centres in Australia as suggested above. Seems silly to have two lists when one will do.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't agree with suggestion article is 'hopelessly out of date' given an update occurred 13 months ago and is not likely to have materially changed. No doubt there is some out of date information, but not sufficient to warrant deletion when an update would be a better solution. Mbrjunc (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources in the article are at least 9 years old. Of the others, 28 are dead. You're correct that an update was done 13 months ago but that affects only 22 of the 72 sources, many of which are primary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the Information could be updated, I was very quickly able to find the Westfield centre information from: http://www.scentregroup.com/properties/au/ ; someone just needs to go through an update it. Aeonx (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, I've made an update to expand the lead and clarify what the list is about. It's a useful list. Most of the information appears accurate even though many of the sources are dead-links, however this alone is not a reason to delete the article. Aeonx (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In 2015, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia identified Australia had 1753 existing shopping centres, being defined as a major integrated retail centre - That many? That's a huge list and how many does the article list now? Only 43. How is that useful? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointless argument. If you actually read the report and the rest of the article lead which I added. Of course 1753 shopping centres is too many to include, which is why only the significant ones of over 70,000sqm are included...as per the lead, this size bracket is common for those in the industry. (Note: I was previously an Urban Designer in Australia, and worked on shopping precincts) Aeonx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I have concerns about the usefulness of such a list, but even setting that aside; In my view, the list as it stands is original research, and needs to be deleted per WP:NOR. The list has sources for the square-footage of each mall, but it does not actually have a source which ranks them. Nor does it have a source verifying that the method used to compute size is the same across all the sources used. Finally, there is no source showing that this list is comprehensive, ie it has all the biggest shopping centers in Australia. Therefore, the current rankings are original research; because it is based on the (unsourced) assumption that there is not a large center that needs to be inserted somewhere in the list that would change the rankings. I would make an analogy to this AfD, which was just closed as "delete." Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly it's not WP:OR. WP:OR only applies if no reliable, published sources exist. You're saying delete but you didn't even look I found TWO sources in the space a minute that substantiate the facts presented.Aeonx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A number of similar article exist for other geographic areas, eg. List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size. This one appears to have been singled out because of a lack of valid references, rather than an assessment on it's encyclopaedic content. Whilst some of the wiki editors above are happy to argue and discuss this in detail above for deletion, none of them have appeared to bother to look for sources or rectify the true problem. Aeonx (talk) 21:07, 9 January 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.