Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Damansara Shopping 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 Damansara Shopping Mall

AfDs for this article:

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

3 Damansara Shopping Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was no consensus. I could only find routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be a run-of-the-mill shopping center. The article contains minimal information and a few references, all from the same newspaper. Interestingly, List of shopping malls in Malaysia lists dozens of malls in Malaysia but does not mention this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article establish notability per WP:GNG. WP:ROTM is an essay and does not override GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A cursory look shows what appears to be good citations for a large mall. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:MILL and very out of date (that Borders and Toys R Us are definitely out of business). If you're going to put up a mall article, make sure it stays up to date. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of date isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:MILL is an essay and doesn't trump GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the subject matter (a listing of shops at a shopping mall), the bare expectation is that the list of stores is relatively up-to-date by at least a couple of years. Borders closed in 2011. We shouldn't, and do not, keep articles for contemporary subjects which do not receive updates due to neglect or loss of interest. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think you're right that both of those stores are no longer at the mall (as I can't see any listing on their respective store lists), your dates seems fairly wrong. The Borders still existed in 2017. [1] [2] (The clearance sale may have been when it closed or maybe it was just a regular "clearance" sale. Malaysian law or enforcement of fairness in advertising is often lax so frankly clearance may be just a name some thought sounded good and could have connection to actually clearing anything.) I don't know when the Toys R Us closed. Your comment makes me wonder if you are confused about the status of the overall business rather than just these specific stores. Note that both brands Toys "R" Us#Asia [3] [4] and Borders Group#Bankruptcy and liquidation [5] [6] still exist in Malaysia to this day and I think have continuously for maybe 30 years for Toys "R" Us (going by memory_ and 16 years or something for Borders, as partly mentioned in our articles (albeit unsourced and with no explanation in Borders) just like Kenny Rogers Roasters. Given the complicated franchise and branding relationships in place and a variety of local ownership requirements etc, it's always a mistake to assume the closure of a parent company means the end of their related stores in other countries. In some cases the brands can get fairly disconnected e.g. Vodafone in NZ, although recently renamed had AFAIK almost no connection for quite a few years other than a naming rights agreement. Added in edit: Consider also the attempts of various Western and Western allied country businesses to close their related businesses in Russia after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some of these simply weren't possible. And some were but required some loss from the parent company. These were sometimes simply because the local operation was written off but I think in some cases they parent actually needed to pay some partner to exit the agreement. A bankrupt business may not be able to support any related operations but they aren't going to be paying money to get out of existing agreements either so unless there's a clause automatically ending the relationship on bankruptcy, it's likely to continue. And I think the way Russia opened in the early days combined with the potential seen for the market and perhaps perceptions it was somewhat a similar market to some existing European operations and for those who entered very early probably also the lack of obvious partners meant businesses were more likely to retain ownership at least when they started. Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 10:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Partly out of personal interest, I researched this further as I had more time now. It seems the Borders likely closed between late 2018 and mid or late 2019 see [7] [8]. So between 3 and 4 years ago. The Toys R Us, longer ago closing I believe in early April 2016. See [9] [10] but especially [11] where the comments as I understand it suggest it's closing down at the time. So over 5 years now. I didn't look for secondary RS documentation of these closures. I'm not sure it exists. I don't know the standards for shopping malls but for many of the articles of malls in NZ, I somewhat doubt you will secondary RS documentation for most of the individual store closures. I think a lot of the time even primary RS documentation will be spotty. So I'm not sure how relevant this is. Although I do see now our article does say they were minor anchor tenants which may make their closure more significant. OTOH, it also suggests we should likely keep mentioning them even if we make it clearer they are not at the mall anymore. A more significant problem is our article does not make clear AEON closed. There may be limited secondary RS at least coverage of this depending of the sourcing standards needed for such issues. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:ORG. The sources all appear to be routine press release type articles, articles of entirely local scope and interest, or minor trivial local coverage. Nothing here to establish the sources rise to the level of significant coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH for businesses, and a mall is a business.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shopping centres have never been held to WP:NCORP standards. The article covers the building, not the people/business that owns the building. Garuda3 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The building itself wouldn't be notable under that standard then (unless it's somehow a Mecca for the mall walking community); it has unexceptional architecture and is otherwise just another mall, and again the stores are in need for a serious updating for this to push over GNG. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, buildings do not need to be exceptional for them to pass GNG and once again being outdated can be fixed with editing and thus is not a valid reason for deletion as AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Garuda3 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Garuda3 Incorrect, and essentially nonsense based on the evidence. If the sources were actually about the architecture of the building or some other physical or historical property of the building then you could make a notability argument under WP:NBUILDING. However, the sources are not about the building but about the business of the mall. Businesses are definitely regulated to WP:ORG under policy. The sourcing is not there for the building and its not there for the business. See source analysis below.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is the relevant guideline per the first bullet on that page, it supersedes specific guidelines like NBUILDING anyway. Garuda3 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, businesses are held to a higher standard by wide community consensus. We require greater rigor, and WP:ORGCRIT applies. ORGCRIT must be passed in this case, because by community input that is how we apply GNG to businesses like malls. This is the policy. Even it it wasn't, the sourcing lacks sufficient in-depth coverage and independence to pass GNG in my opinion without applying ORGCRIT. 4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct standard here as we went over earlier is GNG. This page passes that, with articles like this and all the coverage of the acquisition of the mall. These articles are focused on the mall itself. I would also argue that traffic congestion caused by the mall is directly related to the mall itself and so your source table below is incorrect. I can't currently view that article as am unable to access the Wayback Machine. Garuda3 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again not true. This is a for-profit business with publicly traded stock announcements and therefore WP:ORGCRIT is the standard. Acquisition, merger, and branding press release announcements like these are all dismissed as trivial non-significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Shopping centres have never been held to WP:NCORP standards?" Quite aside from that 4meter4 did not cite NCORP, your general stance is completely detached from longstanding practice. Shopping malls are routinely subject at AfD to ORG and other such notability criteria, and deleted for failing to meet them. You'd be just as accurate in saying that shopping centers have never been required to meet WP:NHOCKEY, WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Ravenswing 23:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the relevant policies before quoting strings of capital letters at me you would have noticed that WP:ORG and WP:NCORP redirect to the same policy Garuda3 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing I am indeed using WP:NCORP as a key relevant policy. Several of the sources being put forward as proving the notability of the 3 Damansara Shopping Mall are publications about the corporation that owns and operates the mall. These includes stock announcements, mergers and acquisitions, branding announcements, etc. Our relevant guidelines for referencing involving publicly traded companies (of which the 3 Damansara Shopping Mall is a part) is the WP:NCORP guideline. If we are going to start using corporate stock announcements and merger/acquistitions as evidence of SIGCOV, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that NCORP doesn't apply here as these are all directly related to the actions of a publicly traded company on the stock exchange.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
"Launching of 3 Damansara". 3 Damansara official page. Retrieved 26 June 2018. Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Facebook page of the organization. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"All under one roof". The Star Online. Retrieved 7 August 2012. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is not about the mall/organization but about a family and an unrelated housing complex. The mall (the building and business) are not even mentioned in the article and it does not actually verify the content it supposed to be verifying in the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"Fear over traffic congestion". The Star Online. Archived from the original on 4 April 2009. Retrieved 7 August 2012. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is not about the building or the business but about local fears over traffic congestion related to the mall. I would not consider this significant coverage of the building, or the business as it essentially about traffic in the surrounding area. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"New mall for PJ residents". The Star Online. Retrieved 7 August 2012. Green tickY Red XN Question? Green tickY Red XN Essentially a puff piece largely based on an interview with executives who own the mall. Lacks sufficient independence from the subject to be considered a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"CapitaMalls to buy Tropicana assets - Business News". The Star Online. Retrieved 27 March 2016. Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Routine acquisition press release announcement. Per WP:ORGCRIT guidelines not considered significant independent coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/capitaland-malaysia-trust-npi-jumps-45-1qfy22-announces-095-sen-dpu Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Stock analysis of the corporation that owns the mall. No mention of the 3 Damansara Shopping Mall except in quoted text by an corporate employee. Not independent and not in-depth. Regardless, this is sig cov of the larger company but not of this specific mall. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
@HelpingWorld 3 Damansara Shopping Mall is not even mentioned in that article other than in quoted text by a CEO connected with the portfolio of businesses which is about the corporation which owns the mall. I added it to the table. 4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging HighKing who is an expert on WP:ORG policy. What is your opinion? Do we consider stock analysis SIGCOV under WP:CORPDEPTH? Also, this appears to be about the corporation that owns the mall and not the mall itself, so does this even count as coverage of the mall? The only mention of the m all is in a recovery plan by an employee of the corporation. 4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I feel this is vote stacking per Wikipedia:Canvassing given HighKing's AfD record. I don't think that comment is an appropriate notification. Garuda3 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4 has also written a request for input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and while the notification wording is neutral, the audience is very much partisan. Garuda3 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also left a note at ANI. I suspect that some of the commenters here may have an undisclosed WP:COI with connections to this for-profit business. The reluctance to apply our policies for for-profit businesses to this article is very odd. The fact that neutrally worded questions and posting notifications to pages where editors who are likely to be well versed in policies on for-profit businesses with community backing is being misconstrued as canvasing is equally concerning. If we can't ask for help from the most competent collection of editors, that seems to be counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. 4meter4 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at ANI There's nothing wrong with posting a neutral notice on the notability guideline talk page, but canvassing an individual editor with a vague criteria of being an "expert" is simply unacceptable. Please don't do that again. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I won't make that mistake again. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
? As per WP:APPNOTE, The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion is appropriate, how is leaving a message at a notability talk page, much like leaving a message at a local WikiProject, partisan? VickKiang (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... the audience is very much partisan." Care to elaborate on your hard evidence for this? (Never mind "partisan" for what, exactly?) Ravenswing 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Good grief. Passing the GNG does NOT, repeat, NOT mean "Oooo, there are sources listed." It does NOT mean "Oooo, using the search term means I found a link on the interwebs so that must mean it's a GNG pass, right?" Passing the GNG means that the subject has gained "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, and if you're fuzzy in what those elements mean, or if you're judging based on "cursory" glances, you have no business in deletion discussions. To quote from WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is what we have here. Ravenswing 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as well as the source analysis by 4meter4 and my online search for sources. There is insufficient significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to support notability under any guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 4meter4. This fails WP:ORG, the current refs are a collection routine announcements clearly failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Many of the sources appear to be promotional, e.g., this states locates strategically and you're in for a surprise, clearly a promotional piece. The source HelpingWorld provided is trivial, mentioning that Portfolio occupancy as at March 31, 2022 declined slightly to 79.5%, largely due to the exit of a supermarket anchor at 3 Damansara... in a quoted text that clearly is not direct independent non-trivial coverage required per CORPDEPTH. The other references are either interview-like, depending exclusively on non-independent quotes and covering trivial details on stores/retail openings, general information about a housing complex or traffic congestion, or other stock/acquisition press releases that falls under standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage under examples of CORPDEPTH-failing coverage. My WP:BEFORE unfortunately found no sources counting towards WP:NCORP (though if other keep voters found any do ping me, thanks), and the keep votes are currently unconvincing, so I'm at delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 4meter4's source assessment table, and the fact that a quick search yields advertisements, mostly. Nythar (💬-❄️) 03:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theoretically, this could be a notable building, which would require significant (not routine) coverage of its design, architecture and history as a notable building. I see none of that. It is just another mall and there many thousands of them. None of the sources discuss anything unique about its architecture. They say nothing about its architecture. Alternatively, the article could be framed as coverage of a notable business, which would require significant coverage in reliable, indepent sources of this mall as a business venture. Again, I see none of that. All I see is trivial, routine local coverage of things like ownership changes, store and post office branch openings, and local concerns about traffic impacts. That is nowhere near enough. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have grown rather fond of 3 Damansara Mall based on this heart-warming story in New Straits Times about the amazing customer-service of the fishmonger at the Oliver Gourmet food hall, and there is this somewhat tantalizing headline in Malay Mail Online that begins "List of notable malls in Klang Valley" but ends "with reported Covid-19 cases in third wave"...but this is not nearly enough to write an article, let alone satisfy WP:NCORP. And no, no real independent analysis of its performance as a business and not seeing anything about its architecture in initial Wikipedia Library cross-database search either. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/3_Damansara_Shopping_Mall_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1126464727"