Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim Lim Square


 * 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. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sim Lim Square
Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability given. --Nehwyn 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, that was fast - just as your were nominating it for deletion, I was actually adding a reference to a two-page broadsheet newspaper feature report on the mall that appeared just three days ago on Singapore's computer history. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, the article states that it is the "most established IT mall [in the country]". Why did the nominator choose to ignore that? The place is very notable, well-known to foreign visitors also. --Vsion 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore that - I just do not consider that (unsourced) statement to meet the WP:CORP criteria, as specified in my nomination. --Nehwyn 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, Sim Lim square is notable. I will try to find sources. Vectro 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any success? And please note, the fact that the square is notable, does not automatically imply that the venues on it are. --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added some citations to the article already. It may be difficult to add more without a physical presence in Singapore. Also, if the square is notable, then it makes sense to mention vendors in the Square's article; the vendeors only have to show separate notability if they want their own article. See e.g., WP:CORP, WP:C&E, and WP:BIO for examples of this principle. Cheers, Vectro 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It has several non-trivial published sources independent of the mall. Can you expand on your reasoning why it still fails WP:CORP? - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:CORP states that media sources should be centred on the subject, and not cover it peripherally, such as on a survey of prices. Two of the references in the article fall into the "trivial coverage" category. The other two, on the other hand, seem to be legitimate. --Nehwyn 10:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep lah. &mdash;Sengkang 02:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "lah" is hardly a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Sim Lim is a very well known shopping mall in Signapore, with tons of computer and electrical stores. --Ter e nce Ong (T 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay... but any claim to Wikipedia notability? --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the article for goodness sake... L e idiot 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "for goodness sake" can hardly be considered a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate. :)  --Nehwyn 10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, its a well-referenced article. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A mall which is clearly well known in a country satisfies wikipedia notability. Satisfying an Italian hermit across the planet isnt a wikipedian criteria.--Huaiwei 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the Suntec City Mall entry above. - SpLoT 14:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, not that "if X, then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that you apparantly applied the same formular when nominating them for deletion.--Huaiwei 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I nominated each article individually. Group nominations are possible under Wikipedia policies, but this is not the case. An individual nomination, like this one, is best evaluated individually, based on the article it refers to, and not on others. --Nehwyn 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So how did you come to the conclusion that people arent exercising their votes "individually"? Just because the same logic applies in one topic happens to apply in another doesent mean it is a collective vote. Mind sharing with us how different each of your "individual" nominations are, then?--Huaiwei 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather assume good faith and hypothesise that no "anti-national conspiracy theory" has been formulated, and that no reaction to that has been discussed out of Wikipedia channels on the concern that said discussion would have been unsuitable to the general public. As for nominations, nominations are termed "individual" if each article has a separate nomination; they are termed "multiple" if a group of related articles is listed in one single nomination. Personally I prefer the former option, as each article should be assessed on its own merits. --Nehwyn 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vsion SchmuckyTheCat 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, per Vsion.-- Tdxi an  g  04:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as mentioned above by many this is a notable place. Yamaguchi先生 10:56, 15 October 2006
 * 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.