Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturt Mall (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 no consensus over validity of cited sources in establishing notability. Default to keep. Deryck C. 13:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sturt Mall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

previous consensus 5 years ago was merge. Somehow someone recreated the article.However, I believe consensus for these small malls has now changed. Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to its own town. Needs more than that to be a WP article. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- it is my understanding that our guideline suggests that malls (as distinct from towns, for example) must meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - ... and if you could point out to us the 'Local' clause in WP:N to back up the last 2 sentences, it would be nice. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the 'local' clause is in WP:CORPDEPTH (which would apply to private shopping centres), specifically 'attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability'. Sionk (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

* 'Lean keep: Proud ambassadors - Rural towns heap praise on visiting stars, Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - March 7, 2002, Length: 1067 words (Estimated printed pages: 4) mentions the mall. Sponge city Wagga's expansion is slow but steady, Australian, The (Australia) - March 26, 2009, Length: 814 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) also mentions. Strongly suspect more sources in local media but it isn't digitised. --LauraHale (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There are more sources that could be used from The Daily Advertiser. The way to find out is to search on Riverina Regional Library site. All the newspapers it has is on microfilm. @LibStar why wasn't any editor who have worked on the article notified about the AfD? Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: All malls have local news coverage. Not all malls should be notable. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That is an POV not supported by policy, why shouldn't all malls be notable, what if they have had coverage elsewhere? As pointed out by LauraHale, there are news stories outside the "local" area. Bidgee (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that not all malls are notable. They are required to meet GNG, per our notability policy.  That requires substantial, non-trivial, non-passing coverage, among other things.  The fact that an article "mentions the mall" is not substantial coverage.  We need substantial RS coverage, not merely the suspicion of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When you've looked at the Australian sources, what has your conclusion been? And with national mentions, and the almost certainty of substantial, non-passing coverage in the major regional papers on sources not digitised, I think it would pass. Sources like this and this and this this this,  this this this also help convince me it is notable. --LauraHale (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My views is now reflected in my !vote, below. IMHO, articles such as the first one you mention as convincing you as to the notability of this mall -- "Teen stabbed at Sturt Mall in daylight attack" (which is not about the mall, and is about a non-notable run-of-the-mill event ... by wp standards), fail to help this mall meet GNG, for the reasons reflected above and below.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LauraHale, you are missing the point of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Events such as the ones you listed in these sources do NOT help establish notability for the mall. They are considered trivial mentions. Significant coverage (which must be more than a trivial mention) mean the sources address the subject directly in detail. Clearly these sources do not. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Till I Go Home, you're missing my point that the coverage is not trivial, and as some one familiar with Australian sources, they can be used to establish notability WP:GNG wise for Australian related content. :) --LauraHale (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: After reviewing the sources, I think it passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI -- you might want to change one of your two !votes to "Comment".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Epeefleche, users are not permitted to vote twice in one AfD discussion. Also, what you "think" is quite frankly irrelevant. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. While this mall does having passing and trivial coverage, and coverage in local media, and coverage re run-of-the-mill events the type of which is common and non-notable vis-a-vis malls, I have not seen the level of substantial, non-trivial, non-passing RS coverage regarding the mall itself that is required to pass GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG doesn't state that sources must be non-local. The coverage in the local media would meet WP:GNG, since it isn't trivial. What would you call "substantial, non-trivial, non-passing RS coverage"? Bidgee (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As to local coverage, see comment and quote above by Sionk.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It "could" apply isn't a strong comment and is a rather open statment. Bidgee (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe he wrote "would". Not "could".  And -- it does, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bidgee, I think you should read WP:CORPDEPTH, which clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Till I Go Home (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable shopping mall with no assertion of notability. I was unable to find coverage in reliable sources that would create one. (Local coverage and trivial mentions do not count, see WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH). Till I Go Home (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The Daily Advertiser has at least 50 news articles on the Sturt Mall, locals sources are relevant and as point out by LauraHale, it has some non-local coverage! This is starting to look like a campaign by a small group of editors whom don't like shopping malls that they personally feel that they should have articles. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again.. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Till I Go Home (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An over used and abused policy for those whom have a goal to get what they hate, deleted.... Local sources CAN be used and as have been bloody pointed out by LauraHale, other sources do exist. 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks. Likewise in your edit summary, suggesting that someone is "thick headed" isn't exactly assuming good faith, at all. And calling this "an over used and abused policy" is subjective and not what we are talking about. The policy is there for a reason, for editors to follow and apply to the relevant article. It clearly states that local coverage is not an indication of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a personal attack, your comment was thick headed. In fact I miss said it was a policy, it is only a guideline and WP:GNG is what matters. Since when did you start representing the Wiki community (re: "for us as Wikipedians"). Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well obviously the policy/guideline is there for a reason.. it's not there for a show-and-tell, it's for editors to use and apply to articles... Till I Go Home (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Policies have to be followed, guildlines can be followed but are not a ' must " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"''. Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well i'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who can't deal with the fact that a non-notable shopping mall is up at AfD. This discussion will close in probably < 24 hours so I'll leave it at that. Kthanksbye. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Till -- You've made your point, and two-thirds of the editors (so far) have !voted delete, so I think that leaving the matter as it stands is a sensible approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (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.