Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Hornsby

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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Hornsby

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

Apparently non-notable shopping mall. The only apparently independent ref is link dead and apparently to a town-planning website. The closest thing I can find to real coverage is two articles on parking issues [1] and [2]. That's not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World's oldest operating shopping centre of the Westfield Group, I think otherwise. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - all mention, one of Australia's largest shopping centres, (Westfield Hornsby) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC) ~~Move to Delete, per discussion. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)~~ Like choosing between Strawberry and Vanilla icecream - I can never make up my mind. Same with this. As per the sources I have provided, and sources Till I Go Home has provided, Hornsby has notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets break those down Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[10] is a local story apparently based on parking tips from the management company.

[11] (mentioned in my nomination) appears to be genuine coverage.

[12] Is local coverage of a promotion they ran, notice The displays were judged by representatives of Westfield Hornsby’s marketing team ...

[13] mentions it in a list, a bare passing mention.

[14] again, passing mention in a list of malls

[15] again, passing mention in a list of malls

[16] again, passing mention in a list of malls

In short, a collection of passing mentions, with one story in a regional paper. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stuartyeats is exactly right about the links provided - trivial routine coverage that does nothing to establish notability, and most are about the corporation itself, rather than this particular mall. The fact that every link that mentions this mall is the local paper is more indication that it's not notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Morning Herald - Is not the local paper; Used Australia wide. 2. Can someone please direct me to the WP policy which states that if a company/group whatecver the case, is mentioned in multiple reliable media outlets - does not make the group/company notable? Thanks -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) my use of the word local was in relation to http://hornsby-advocate.whereilive.com.au/ stories. That does seem like a local paper to me, but I'm happy to look a circulation stats or coverage stats if you have them.

(2) See Wikipedia:Notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for providing the whole policy - but I mean specific mention - if provided, I shall move to Delete. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point one under General notability guideline reads "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope that wasn't too difficult. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still a little unsure what the phrase World's oldest operating shopping centre of the Westfield Group, above means, but the mall isn't mentioned in the Westfield Group article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point being...? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that it may be an attempt to communicate a point of notability that I have failed to grasp. I have done what I can but I'm open to someone explaining it to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Westfield Hornsby is longest operating shopping centre in their chain, so it has been opened for the longest period of time. For this reason, Westfield Hornsby is particularly notable. Also, I found some reliable sources which may change your mind: [17] [18] [19] [20] Till I Go Home (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, TIGH, do you support a Keep of the article, or a Delete? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a keep, especially now since I did a major cleanup and there are plenty of properly-cited references in the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant sources online. Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) have an article on every mall, especially when there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the mall. Millermk90 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even checked out the recent article? I see plenty of references... -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked at the article. Sources 1 and 5 are primary, 2 is a passing reference, 3 is really about the parent company Westfield Group, which may be notable, but doesn't affect this article's notability, 4 is in the press because of Apple's notability, not because of the mall's, and 6, 7, and 8 are about celebrities, who happened to visit the mall. It is my opinion that a couple of first party sources coupled with a few celebrities stepping foot in a mall and an apple store do not make an article notable. I will restate what was said above, and taken directly form WP:N: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Millermk90 (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are some sources, but as correctly analyzed by Millermk90 they appear partially primary sources (1& 5 are from the official site, 3 & 4 are anything else than press releases), partially articles about some local & promotional events of zero significance. It remains source 2, that could "suggest" some historical importance of the W.H. for Hornsby's suburb, but "if" these are all the sources currently there is not enough to pass GNG. --Cavarrone (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Property Council defines a super-regional shopping centre as one which "typically incorporates two full line department stores, one or more full line discount department stores, two supermarkets and around 250 or more specialty shops", and that the "total GLAR exceeds 85,000 square metres". To call this super-regional shopping centre, with a GLA of 100,000sqm and containing well over 300 stores, "non-notable" is ridiculous. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements for Wikipedia are at Wikipedia:Notability, I would encourage you to attempt to recast that argument in terms of Wikipedia notability.Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPLACE, if it falls into the "largest" it is "generally considered notable" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, thank you for pointing that out. Westfield Hornsby is the fourth largest Westfield shopping centre in NSW. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was pinged on my talk page by Till I Go Home to take another look at the current references, so I am. First off the article is now in a much better state, due to Till I Go Home's TLC, but for me the references still aren't there:

[21] the company's official page for the mall. Not independent

[22] local history site with three mentions. Opening stage 1, opening stage 2 and the opening of a fountain (+thumbnail of fountain). All good information, but not in-depth coverage.

[23] company press release. Not independent

[24] Apple opening a new store. Passing mention that it's in this mall. Not in-depth coverage.

[25] Public transport information. Not independent

[26] The company that installed the parking systems was so pleased with it they featured it in their in-house magazine. Not independent

[27], [28] and [29] are all very similar, as tours by notable people that visit the mall for a single day and are subsequently covered in the local newspaper. The first two mention the mall only in passing to to the coverage to the local area (i.e. they fail in-depth coverage), whereas the third mentions the name Westfield many times, apparently because the parent company sponsored the trip. All three seem to fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS to me, but the last is close.

So I'm unable to change my position. Stuartyeates (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per Stuartyeats. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large shopping centre, Westfield's oldest, lots of sources. Easy keep. Rebecca (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Westfield Hornsby has even won a Historical Rider Hunt Award in 2003. [30] [31] And in my opinion this demonstrates notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this "Historical Rider Hunt Award" does not appear a significant award, has zero GNews hits, zero GBooks hits and only two Google entries, the first is the link you posted above and the other is the "Westfield Hornsby"-article. Cavarrone (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prestigious award given to the best commercial buildings of the year, meaning it is significant. And by the way, you're not supposed to use the word "Historical"; just put in "Rider Hunt Award" and you will see coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake, indeed this award has some news and books coverage. I'm note sure that this award could, by itself, change the notability-status of a subject, but at this point I prefer remove my vote.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Rider Hunt was the sponsor, the awards are made by the Property Council of Australia and Property Council of New Zealand at their respective annual bashes. These appear to be unrelated to the Australian Institute of Architects awards which do seem to get quite a bit of press. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, documenting its refurbishment. [32] Till I Go Home (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And your link is an advertisement for the concrete company that helped refurbish it. Advertising is never independent, never reliable, and never indicates notability. My vote remains delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was only to show that there could be more to build onto the page. Notability however, has been demonstrated with the 2003 Rider Hunt award. Also, WP:NPLACE says that larger shopping centres (such as Westfield Hornsby) are generally considered notable. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have !voted delete on most shopping malls brought here, but this is over the usual size that we accept, and is distinctive as the first of this major chain. The sources are sufficient for the purpose, with respect to this topic, DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the oldest in the chain, not the first. This one was built in 1961 [33], but the first Westfield one was 1959 in Blacktown, Sydney (presumably it's not still in the chain). This one was acquired later. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 16 December 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.