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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kawana Shoppingworld

[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a small one storey shopping centre. gnews reveals just routine localised coverage that fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i wouldn't necessarily call this a small shopping centre (maybe a medium one?:)), as gmaps shows it is around 45,000sqm, and it has over 150 outlets (according to shopping centre directory), i note that WP:NPLACE (yes i know it isn't a policy:)) has larger shopping malls often being notable while very small ones deleted, maybe this one could be merged/redirected to Buddina, Queensland if not found to be notable for a standalone? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is by far the largest shopping centre in the electoral district of Kawana and features regularly in the Sunshine Coast Daily and other local free papers, but also occasionally in the Brisbane Times, and as part of the Mirvac portfolio, in The Australian. On balance, Keep. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself looks quite borderline, and needs improvement, but as the editor above notes, it gets plenty of usable coverage in a variety of notable media outlets (as a Google News search will reveal), so I think it's worth keeping and expanding, as long as it doesn't get promotional. SunChaser (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (company). Not opposed to merge, but I don't think it is necessary, this is pretty much spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage in the media (WP:SIGCOV). This shopping mall has one floor but it is not so small and is near to the seafront. Per WP:NEXIST: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (big fat policy header). gidonb (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you please give examples of this significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Google News. The list is long. I have stopped providing examples as it puts both unreasonable and unfair burden on keep sayers based on their honest analysis of data available to everyone. I will say this. Given the amount of WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV it is very difficult to reach any conclusion but keep. If you will start arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with your proposal, this discussion is going to be very time consuming for you. gidonb (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are,they are not verifiable. It's quite a reasonable and fair request to ask a keep !voter to list sources. That's unless you can't. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

secondly trying to dissuade me with "time consuming " arguments is lame. If I see faulty keep arguments they take no time to point out. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I said: my opinion is keep as I saw the resources that justify this, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. I further indicated what (newspaper articles) and where (Google News) the sources are so there is absolutely nothing faulty about my honest opinion. I am done, however, with referencing each and every article for which I say keep as Wikipedia is becoming an unfair institution where people will just nominate any article, and I'm not saying you did this, in the hope that others will reference these or they can "score" yet another unjustified deletion. The sources are ready available through Google News, through the links that you provided above. Just stop the silly nominations and arguments and reference yourself. There is an abundance of very valid sources out there! Per WP:NEXIST's big fat header: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. gidonb (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing off-topic discussion - Please do not modify
These are a few of the sillier recent nominations: Zwart-Wit '28 (honest disclosure: I did write this article) – per WP:FOOTYN the article is notable if the club participated in the national cup. Nominator nominated a club that actually won the national cup! Alexandra Kluge – One of Germany's highest decorated actresses. Nominator clearly didn't look left or right and just nominated her. (Note the bio deletion regular who says" "Delete just plain not notable in either career.") Espresso House – huge company, the Starbucks of the Nordic countries. I'm not saying that this nomination is as bad but it is definitely out there in the sense that there is a large amount of fine references which the nominator could have added to the article, instead of nominating for deletion. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] ironically in the time spent writing the above response you could have easily listed sources. LibStar (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] It had crossed my mind but I'm also educating others not to come up with unreasonable demands. On the long run it may safe time. Plus I take referencing serious and do it elaborately. See for example Evelyn Young. I want to encourage everyone to take their editor tasks serious and not pose inappropriate demands to those they disagree with. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] I've been on WP several years and participated in thousands of AfDs it's certainly reasonable to request sources when a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument is presented. Let me guess you'll keep on replying... LibStar (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] However, I did NOT make a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Also, did you make such requests of others in this discussion? Where is your attempt to reference this article? There are many sources in the link that you provided. gidonb (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate that in depth sourcing exists. That's how AfD works. LibStar (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] If you mean that such unreasonable and unevenhanded demands have been made before, I agree. However not all that has been done before at Wikipedia is desirable. Hoaxes and vandalism, for example, are not. gidonb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] you accused me of being time consuming with arguing (when my initial response was one question). How much time have you spent arguing here? WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] I answered your questions and demands of other people's time. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] How much time have you consumed arguing here? LibStar (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] More than I like but 14 years at WP have made me patient. Or maybe it's just me getting older ;-) gidonb (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing off-topic discussion - Please do not modify

These are a few of the sillier recent nominations:

Zwart-Wit '28 (honest disclosure: I did write this article) – per WP:FOOTYN the article is notable if the club participated in the national cup. Nominator nominated a club that actually won the national cup!
Alexandra Kluge – One of Germany's highest decorated actresses. Nominator clearly didn't look left or right and just nominated her. (Note the bio deletion regular who says" "Delete just plain not notable in either career.")
Espresso House – huge company, the Starbucks of the Nordic countries.

I'm not saying that this nomination is as bad but it is definitely out there in the sense that there is a large amount of fine references which the nominator could have added to the article, instead of nominating for deletion. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ironically in the time spent writing the above response you could have easily listed sources. LibStar (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had crossed my mind but I'm also educating others not to come up with unreasonable demands. On the long run it may safe time. Plus I take referencing serious and do it elaborately. See for example Evelyn Young. I want to encourage everyone to take their editor tasks serious and not pose inappropriate demands to those they disagree with. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on WP several years and participated in thousands of AfDs it's certainly reasonable to request sources when a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument is presented. Let me guess you'll keep on replying... LibStar (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, I did NOT make a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Also, did you make such requests of others in this discussion? Where is your attempt to reference this article? There are many sources in the link that you provided. gidonb (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate that in depth sourcing exists. That's how AfD works. LibStar (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that such unreasonable and unevenhanded demands have been made before, I agree. However not all that has been done before at Wikipedia is desirable. Hoaxes and vandalism, for example, are not. gidonb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you accused me of being time consuming with arguing (when my initial response was one question). How much time have you spent arguing here? WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your questions and demands of other people's time. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much time have you consumed arguing here? LibStar (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than I like but 14 years at WP have made me patient. Or maybe it's just me getting older ;-) gidonb (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sealed off the digression above as this AfD belongs to all. My opinion is just one of six. Hopefully there will be more feedback. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This is a pretty clear case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES - yes I can see trivial mentions in google news (and google books), however I do not see indepth coverage, nor coverage from national newspapers. Only sunshine coast daily covers it. 18:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Actually, just merge a bit of content into Buddina, Queensland and redirect to Buddina, Queensland#amenities Galobtter (pingó mió)

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.