Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Australia)

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 redirect to Sylvania, New South Wales#Commercial areas. Some content can be merged from history if desited. Sandstein 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Shopping Centre (Australia)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is one of a number of articles on minor shopping centres that have been created or recreated in Sydney or nearby in the last few days. It has been created before and was deleted under a slightly different name.(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania)). The creator claims it has been improved, but I can't see any new evidence that shows that it is significant. Grahame (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I do not even know why this discussion is even happening on this article especially when I created that article through the WP:AFC. I'm sure many users would agree that articles that are accepted through the AFC are ones that are notable and meet the WP:Criteria in which articles must notable. I know this Southgate Shopping Centre has been through 2 WP:AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate, Sylvania this one was a separate article made in 2011 for the same shopping centre just under a different name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania) was done 4 years ago back and created by me. This was when I was new to Wikipedia and that shopping centre did not have many articles on it and did not meet the notability criteria. After that AFD it was voted to be a redirect. However in December 2020 I found 2 articles from St George and Sutherland Shire Leader detailing its history and notability, so I gave it a try by using the existing redirected article and then using the WP:AFC so then my hard work would not be deleted without any help from fellow users. As for the AFC I have found nothing that's against the rules for User:Bkissin (talk) to accept this AFC. I have also noticed that in the article history that Grahame (talk) put a notability tag after it was accepted through the AFC and then added a speedy deletion tag that it was "previously deleted". The tag was then removed by an unamed user but was reverted back to the tag. However User:ONUnicorn (talk) removed the tag with the reasons Decline WP:G4. 1. the result of the previous discussion was not delete, but redirect. 2. The content was moved to draft, and substantial sourced information about the history was added, addressing concerns in the AFD. 3. The article was accepted by AFC before being moved back to mainspace. Consensus can change. I have also noticed that Grahame (talk) put a notability tag on the Rowen's Arcade article which was created through the AFC on the same date as Southgate which was then accepted on the same date by the same user. - User:BugMenn (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing AfC is not an automatic validation of notability. It's not a G4 candidate, but that doesn't make it immune from AfD. Please argue significant coverage by reliable sources, not Wikipedia processes. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still comes up short per WP:GNG, as non-trivial, non-routine RS coverage comes from one source, the St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader. Incidental coverage includes coverage about a store in the mall and incidents in stores at the mall. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect as second choice. I was asked on my talk page to comment on this discussion. The current version of the article definitely is an improvement over the version that was redirected as a result of the prior AFD. However, it's borderline whether it meets notabilty guidelines. The article at present cites 12 sources. I would say they are all reliable for facts, but they don't all weigh equally when assessing notability. In this instance, I find two things that to me are indications of notability; the article in the Australian Financial Review, and the cumulative effect of articles in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader about the mall's expansion and the flashback articles. The one in the Australian Financial Review is stronger, as that is a national paper whereas the Leader seems to be regional. I do not think the articles about accidents at the mall contribute to notability as they are not about the mall. Now, if the mall was known as exceptionally dangerous, with articles talking about how it should be shut down because of how many incidents happen there, then they would contribute to notability, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I discount the ISPT and Cordell Connect sources as they do not seem to be independent (the website of the mall's owner and the contractor, respectively). They are reliable for facts about the mall, but do not contribute to notability. I did a Google search, and didn't come up with anything that isn't currently in the article, but I didn't spend much time or effort on it, so someone doing a more in depth search may find something I didn't. I think there's enough here for me to come down as a weak keep, but barely. My second choice would be to redirect again, leaving the history available for someone to build on down the road if they come up with more. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the WP:CANVASSING going on, there is not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can anyone explain why a merge to Sylvania, New South Wales is not inappropriate (and required to be assessed before deletion as per WP:ATD)? Deus et lex (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected before but it is now been recreated. I have no objection to the redirection being restored.--Grahame (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect I think the notability of the mall is quite questionable, but the coverage in St George and Sutherland Shire Leader seems like notable history of commercial development in Sylvania, New South Wales. That history section could be condensed substantially and added to the subsection on Sylvania about commercial areas. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom and reasoning by onel5969. Not enough coverage for GNG yet. Citterz (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Suriname0. None of the deletion proponents have shown that that is inappropriate, and if an alternative is available it must be preferred over deletion as per WP:ATD. Deus et lex (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why don't we keep this article if there is a confusion in the debate and makes no sense. I know for a fact that there are users on Wikipedia who have no life and pride themselves in deleting articles. Surely the users that vote redirect actually want it kept. Also Grahame (talk) is jealous that this article passed the WP:AFC. This article also does have significant Notability. - User:BugMenn (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nonsensical comment about WP:AFC. Being accepted by AFC doesn't insure that an article won't be nominated for deletion.--Grahame (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sylvania, New South Wales where it's already mentioned. Fails WP:ORG with no in-depth non-local coverage. Fails WP:NBUILD with no evidence of "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".----Pontificalibus 11:31, 15 April 2021 (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.