Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaw House and 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 keep. Sengkang's arguments apparently quite persuasive. Cool Hand Luke 09:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaw House and Centre

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article neither asserts notability of its subject nor contains any hints on it. As far as I can see, this is not a tallest, largest or oldest building in Singapore. I believe they have hundreds of such centers there. Also unreferenced. Contested ProD. Brought here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- Futurano 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions.   -- Sengkang 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Any place doesn't have to be an "-est" to be worthy of an article. Major shopping/office complex in central part of major internationally important city. --Oakshade 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete still lacking independent sources attesting notability Corpx 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sufficient references (ie: 2) can be provided to demonstrate notability.Garrie 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable building. Keb25 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Oakshade. It's a landmark building at the intersection of Orchard Road and Scotts Road, one of the busiest focal points in Singapore's main shopping belt. &mdash;Sengkang 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being at a busy intersection equals notability? Corpx 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Picking "being at a busy intersection equals notability" equals lopsided arbitrary selectivity. Chensiyuan 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To further substantiate my point, Shaw House and Shaw Centre are one of the two major Shaw complexes built by Shaw Organization, our local film distribution company and movie theater chain founded in 1924. The former Shaw House and Shaw Centre were one of the earliest buildings to be established on Orchard Road, when a portion of it used to be a large cemetery but has now been developed into a major tourist belt. They are one of the busiest buildings on Orchard Road in terms of human traffic, whether it is a weekday or a weekend. To Singaporeans, it is a major landmark and serves as their common meeting point. &mdash;Sengkang 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a rant, my fellow SGpedians have put in much effort and time in creating Singapore-related articles, and I am amazed at the insistence of removing some of these articles in the name of "non-notability". I have made my point...Thanks! &mdash;Sengkang 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it can be a possibility. One Times Square would probably not reach its current state of notability if it was not at a busy intersection called Times Square.--Huaiwei 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, one times square has plenty of coverage from independent sources Corpx 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 727 results for a world-famous NY countdown venue, compared to 31 for "Shaw House Singapore". Not too bad!--Huaiwei 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, of those hits are directory entires which merely reflects the address of a particular business inside this building. Corpx 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And how many of those links are actually addresses?--Huaiwei 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not qualify as significant coverage Corpx 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if so, the high coverage for One Times Square still underscores my original point that its notability has plenty to do with its location.--Huaiwei 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This building is one of the most prominent landmarks of Orchard Road, and it is shocking to see it being nominated for deletion, along with some other cases. Spruce up the article if neccesary, but an outright deletion is going a tad too far.--Huaiwei 10:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a tremendous difference between "let's clean this up" and "i don't know anything about this so let's delete it". Chensiyuan 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep historic landmark. --Vsion 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, flagship of Shaw Group; major cineplex hosting world premieres . Kappa 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If its all these things mentioned, there has got to be some sources that are giving "significant coverage" to this building. Corpx 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So change your vote to "keep" Kappa 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also described as "impressive" in the British Government's Colony of Singapore Annual Report 1958. Kappa 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a trivial mention Corpx 07:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what would a non-trivial mention be like? Kappa 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A non-trivial mention would be, mention in a report about Shaw House. Not a passing mention in the annual report of any organisation. If you can show that the annual report has a whole chapter about Shaw House and it's impact on the economy then that would be non-trivial - but Shaw House hasn't had that big an impact so the only mention of it in the governments annual report is trivial. With that in mind, it's an excellent citation for the fact it is verifying.Garrie 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's kinda strange that the British government describing this building as "impressive" in the context of the history of the colony in 1958 is regarded as insignificant. Anyway, as Corpx says, there must be more sources, it's just very hard to track them down via google. I wonder if a "spate of nostalgic articles" counts... Kappa 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - lots of work done on this, and it looks a valid article to me. Deb 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain why, in your opinion, the nominator should be admonished for this good-faith nomination? --B. Wolterding 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Without necessarily alluding to the present situation, good faith isn't always presupposed, if I may add. Chensiyuan 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable landmark in major city. -- Beloved freak  14:48, 3 August 2007 (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.