Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stafford City Shopping 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 delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :)  06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stafford City Shopping Centre

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

Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA,, who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng.Mattinbgn\talk 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable shopping centre, cruddy article. Yu Feng isn't a person; it's a company, which appears to have stakes in a string of often prominent shopping centres (see a list on this page, search down for Yu Feng to get to it). Rebecca (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't perceive notability based on what's in the article. If the place is notable then the article hasn't explained why.  Every shopping centre in the world should not have an article just by virtue of existing.  And I think 'cruddy article' is in fact sufficient justification for deletion -- if cruddy enough. :) brianlucas (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Its a shopping mall, not a national observatory. Why is this even being contested. An advert is an advert is an advert.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Whether it's a poorly written article that reads like a bill of lading or a future FAC doesn't matter. Notability means we don't delete. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N says Reliable Sources sources must exist to prove any asserted notability. But it also indicates that notability must be supported in those Reliable Sources... having adverts and blurbs in such sources do not create a notability. The article must assert a notability that can then be sourced... not the other-way-round. I have looked for such sources, and all they can confirm is that the place exists. There is nothing notable about it. Fails WP:Corp}}. Fails [[WP:N. Smacks highly of WP:SPAM  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, appears to meet notability requirements through third-party coverage, although only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Then perhaps the author might source it to show notability in having a wonderful place to buy refrigerators, jewelry, condiments, furniture, clothes, shoes, etc? From Google search: here's map of the complex. Heres's a description telling of the 75 specialty stores, the address, a realtor telling about one of his properties is located conveniently nearby, He a listing with addresses os all Brisbane Shopping Centre Locations, a realtor telling he is located in the centre. The sources prove its existance through RS, not its notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources simply do not show why this mall is notable compared to thousands of other malls, Shopping centres are not inherently notable.Yobmod (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have struck my delete per improvements by User:Bilby  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak Delete. Notability for malls is commonly considered a regional mall somewhere above 350,000 sq ft. At 26484 m2 the mall is close to that number.  Maybe with more work on notability.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 7 October 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.