Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Square

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 November 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Although only a limited number of people have opined, no evidence has been provided that it might have sufficient coverage to satisfy notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Square

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A local shopping centre with 30 specialty stores is in absolutely no way notable. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. The only real coverage it gets is for a fire where no one was injured. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong Keep its not just a local shopping centre. Its a combination of shopping centre/apartment complex with onsite medical assistance for the residence ... that is unusual and worthy of WP:Note. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and what WP policy says because of this it is notable? LibStar (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Notability kind ... you know ... the "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." Different from the norm or unusual seems to fit, like this structure is different and unusual... and by the way, its over 70 stores. Did you try looking for sources? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, how about evidence of indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. A local shopping mall with "a combination of shopping centre/apartment complex with onsite medical assistance for the residence" does not qualify for notability. Echoing Libstar's previous comment, the topic must receive siginificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the GNG. I cannot find evidence that a small shopping mall, with some 30 (or 70 that you claim) stores meets the guideline. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it could have 500 shops, 3 medical centres and a water slide, but if it has no indepth coverage (besides mere confirmation of existence), NO article. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does have an indepth article in a international industry magazine devoted solely to it [1]. [2]. A 500 shop mall would prolly be classified as a Superregional[3], and as per Common outcomes, would prolly be Notable just for that fact alone. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://designbuildsource.com.au is not an industry magazine, it seems a website for advertising for building companies etc. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

designbuildsource.com.au is part of Mediaedge Communication (Scourceable) Pty Ltd , a division of Mediaedge.ca. Whom are international in scope and well know in the retail sector. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

designbuildsource.com.au might be owned by an internationally known company but it doesn't mean Pacific Square is internationally known. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does mean that the Center has been the subject of indepth reporting in a country specific industry magazine, that also happens to shares industry information across borders. A reliable, published source. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on a major Australian search engine for your beloved Pacific square. nothing indepth [4]. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and nothing in major Australian news site news.com.au [5]. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"for your beloved" stop... before you go to far please. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I can keep searching for a lack of sources to demonstrate a failure to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another search nothing in major Australian broadcaster ABC Australia [6]. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.