Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Seasons Place, Penang (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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient for notability Star Mississippi 02:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Seasons Place, Penang

AfDs for this article:

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

All Seasons Place, Penang (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 had minimal participation. Does not have coverage to meet GNG. One source merely confirms a bus runs to the centre, another source confirms the statement "a flea market opens within the mall every weekend, offering apparel at discounted prices" LibStar (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note the previous AfD, to paraphrase, "Size confers notability, this is a large mall hence notable." except there is no guideline about size of a mall and notability and this mall is actually pretty small/local. What it most certainly isn't, is notable. No SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks fine to me and seems to meet content requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any outstanding issues regarding the article's notability should have been resolved, now that the article has been rewritten and news-based citations added, mainly on the development's history. hundenvonPG (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None, absolutely none, of that coverage confers or points to notability. A supermarket opens? They do that. It's all WP:ROUTINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd appreciate some assessment of the changes made since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Source 1, coverage of opening press event, interview. Source 2, coverage of developer, interview. Source 3, developer website. Source 4, developer website. Source 5, single sentence mention of supermarket opening. Source 6, press coverage of supermarket opening, interview with supermarket director. Source 7, mall directory. Source 8, two-line mention in Time Out listing. Source 9, property website listing and finally, and pretty much representative of the quality of sourcing on offer here, Source 10 is a bus timetable (the mall is on the route). And that is precisely why I said it's all WP:ROUTINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourcing has been argued, looking for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Delete per the source review by Alexandermcnabb, the references in the article do not pass GNG, as routine coverages and interviews aren't going to help this article satsify notability guidelines. If three sources that are GNG-worthy are found, please ping, but otherwise delete. Tails Wx 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BEFORE check does not show any coverage of significance other than what's in the article, which I think is insufficient. Source analysis shows what's available just does not constitute significant coverage. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it could perhaps be moved to All Seasons Park, Penang and expanded to cover the condo towers. All Seasons Park – A Landmark Development, All Seasons Park etc. could provide content on the residential side. The difficulty with a place like this is the search results are swamped by commercial sites advertising businesses in the mall. But there are enough news sources to show notability, as one would expect for such a conspicuous development. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2 links you provide seem quasi-advertising and wouldn't count as reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2023 (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/All_Seasons_Place,_Penang_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1189798486"