Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowen's Arcade


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__.  Sandstein  20:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Rowen's Arcade

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Small, local shopping arcade with no obvious notability. Appears to be WP:MILL, based mostly original research and the few sources provided are either deadlinks, primary sources (Web pages of tenants), real estate listings or limited to very local media coverage. Has been previously tagged for notability, but tagging was reverted/removed without discussion on talk page or obvious improvement. Dfadden (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Guy builds a house and other stuff" in an article about a shopping plaza is not really what we're looking for. This would be more suited for some local history project. I don't see notability with what's given and I don't find sourcing about this place. Delete for any lack of notability or lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As written, the article's sourcing fails GNG - I do see a couple articles in there that I would count but they're basically from the same event (the sale) in spite of being two years apart, and another potentially sort-of-okay source is now a dead link. Considering this is a long standing business I think that a historical newspaper search might be able to save the article, but I've only been able to do that for places in Melbourne and to a lesser extent WA, not sure where to look to save this one. To help whoever is closing, I can't make a good keep !vote even though I'd like to and can't be sure sources exist, so count this as a reluctant delete unless someone performs a historical source search. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I conducted a quick search of newspaper archives via the National Library's Trove search engine. I found three articles from the Canberra Times (which is beyond local in scope and would be considered WP:RS) that date back to the 1980s, but these are almost entirely about the Funland amusement park - there are very trivial mentions of the shopping arcade here, and  but nowhere near the standard required to be considered WP:SIGCOV. The only other references to Rowen's Arcade in Ulladulla are notices of business premises for lease and routine tax assessment filing, which is all very WP:MILL.It would be a stretch too far in my opinion to consider articles about the sale of the business as independent - see the examples of dependant coverage in WP:NORG. Maybe you could build a case if you have full access to the Milton-Ulladulla Times and South Coast Register articles, but they are behind a paywall and I'm not inclined to subscribe to these papers to read 10 year old articles to save an article that is borderline at best. Even then, these are hardly national publications that establish broader notability, rather local newspapers based in Ulladulla and Nowra with very limited circulation outside of the Shoalhaven.
 * I guess an argument could be made that Funland itself may be notable (although I can really only find coverage in a single RS), but that would be better suited to a standalone article if someone wanted to create it. That said, it appears the new owners of this Funland have used the name to expand it into a larger chain and the only real association this company has with Rowen's Arcade is as a tenant and the adoption of the historical name. Dfadden (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (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.