Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Point Shopping Centre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:12, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 - as has been adequately and coherently pointed out below, despite mass armwaving actual multiple credible third-party sources (i.e. not press releases or passing mentions) are conspicuous by their absence.

The majority for keeping is rendered insubstantial by the fact that a significant proportion of its editors have no reasoning, faulty reasoning (claiming inclusion as an indicator of notability among the least bizarre but nonetheless incorrect) or empty assertions with nothing to back them up. I expect this to be controversial but evidence and policy, not votes, is what decides AfDs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong Point Shopping Centre

[edit]


Non-notable shopping mall. --Nehwyn 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok lah, reference added liow lah, satisfied or not? Not happy then boh ban huat loh....Lol —Sengkang 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, write your motivations in English! This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STYLE: Article have strong tie with the region, and the use of dialect is understandable. Look up the meaning if you are looking so much forward to know what it meant. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dialect is fine, as long as it is an English dialect. "boh ban huat" is hardly English. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is just too bad for you. I dont supposed you know what that means, or do you?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia has English discussions. For article and discussion in other languages, other Wikipedias exist. If an article or comment is posted in another language on the English Wikipedia, it is fair to ask for a translation into English. --Nehwyn 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Jurong Point is one of the major shopping malls in the western area of Singapore. It is one of the largest malls as well, the articles is in need of a cleanup. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article, and both of your arguments, are in need of cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Neither you nor the article have cited any, not even one to support your assertion that this is a major shopping mall. Uncle G 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... but you haven't cited any sources. Re-arranging the deck-chairs won't help make a case for keeping the article. Sources will. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Instead of making fallacious arguments, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, as already requested above. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article would be "a great insult to all Singaporeans"? You mean this mall has relevance as a national monument for Singapore? If so, please accept my apologies in proposing this deletion, but make sure that statement is included in the article. As for the rest of your argument, as it has been remarked already "if X then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in Wikipedia deletion debates, except for reporting other articles in need of a prod tag. I did propose deletion for some of them; the others did have a claim to notability. --Nehwyn 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (was delete, see below) If the page defenders want to make a run at establishing notability, I would give them a day or two to do it.) Page fans, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for businesses, you need to come up with at least a few non-trivial articles about the mall in reliable sources. The easiest way is to go to your local library and ask a librarian to help you search newspaper records, or just call the mall and see if they have a press clipping file you can review. TheronJ 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Update: after waiting "the few days" mentioned above, I think there are a lot more reasons to delete. I've explained them below. TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see more reason to keep this article than the article on Jurong Entertainment Centre. Firstly, it is a more popular mall than Jurong Entertainment Centre. Secondly, Jurong Point had been mentioned on local papers as they are expanding it and building an interchange under it and a Condominium, (The Centris)Andersenhwl 12:27 14 October 2006 (UTC +8)
Note: The comment above is from the article author. --Nehwyn 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again... then "if X then Y" reasoning is not generally considered a valid point in a deletion debate, which should be based on the article in question. Your second point, on the other hand, may meet one of the WP:CORP criteria... any sources for that? --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've worked places with parking lots bigger than 700,000 square feet, and those lots don't get WP articles. Why should size matter unless the mall is notable specifically for being "the world's largest"? I don't see that we should include every nation's largest mall, every nation's tallest building, etc. unless there are verifiable third-party sources featuring that fact. A local newspaper's article saying "mall being expanded" is of little weight by itself, as every mall has probably gotten a two-paragraph blurb in its local paper. Is this one Singapore's largest or just "yardstick of other ... malls"? Barno 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the population density of Singapore? - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this datum to Wikipedia inclusion policies? Barno 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small land area of Singapore limits the size of architectures, which make Jurong Point one of the largest and most notable in Singapore. Perhaps Jurong Point is insignificant compared to American or whatever standards, but are you saying that we are supposed to neglect local standards when editing articles relating to local events/places and adopt only American standards? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm saying we are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia standards, including verifiable significance rather than whether a couple of local people claim importance without evidence. Note that at least one other editor claims to be from there and claims it's not more significant than other shopping centers. Freddy's General Store might be the most important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota, but that "local standard" isn't evidence of Wikipedia importance. Otherwise WP would be swamped in articles for a hundred thousand malls "one of the largest and most notable in XXX" for which nothing encyclopedic could be documented. Barno 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not limit yourself to "major mall"; give a motivation why the article meets WP:CORP.  :) --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. This article is not about the owner or management of the mall, most people don't really care or know who the owner is. This is about a public place, with tens of thousands of people visiting there each day. It has medical clinics and a public library, etc, and is major part of public amenities in Jurong. --Vsion 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Tens of thousands of people visit the mall every day..." - sources? The problem with this article has been clearly stated early on by Uncle G - sources are needed! Without sources, anyone can say that about any place and there's no way to verify what they are saying is correct. If I were more skeptical and hadn't seen the place myself, I'd say the page writer is just making it up. "Major" and "many people visit this place" are what you can hear at the kopitiam ("coffee shop", for non-Singaporeans); (un)fortunately, Wikipedia is not the kopitiam anyone can edit - sources have to be provided. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you are talking about? The nomination said the subject is not-notable, which is false. The source to these facts is already given in the "external link" before the nomination. If the nominator missed it, and someone had to highlight the infor, it is perfectly alright and that is what I was trying to do above. On the other hand, if one editor doubt another's comment for no apparent reason and don't bother to do his/her own research or even follow up with the links, that is not very constructive.--Vsion 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "external link" you mention as a reference for your statements is the shopping centre's own website. I did not miss it; I merely believe that cannot be used as an independent source about the shopping centre itself. --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of "independent source" would you like to see? If I march up to that mall and snap a photo of the crowds, is that "independent" enough in your books?--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's in my books is of little importance; it is Wikipedia:Independent_sources and WP:V which count in this case. I still think th official website of a commercial venue cannot be considered an independent source for claims about that venue. --Nehwyn 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect my question to be answered thou.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure I follow you on the last one... doesn't anyone? --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I arent sure what "note sure" means either, but I can overlook that.--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I meant to say is that I haven't understood why you stated that you expect your questions answered. If by that you mean that you feel I haven't answered "what kind of independent source would you like to see"?, I should probably rephrase my answer then: "The kind of independent source I would like to see is the one which would satisfy the definition of independet source found at Wikipedia:Independent_sources. A venue's official website cannot be defined as "independent" from that same venue." Again, sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not answering the question. I asked about the acceptability of my own photos. Do Wikipedia:Independent_sources make any mention of that?--Huaiwei 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was "tens of thousands of people"... So no, I don't think a single photograph can confirm that number. We need factual, written references by third-party sources. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are making the assumption that my photo is meant to support that particular claim. Where did I make this association? Second, your statement "factual, written references by third-party sources" suggests that I am not an independent source, and that only "factual, writtern sources" are permitted. Is this true? Please point out the relevant wikipolicy which explicitely states as such.--Huaiwei 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What claim would your photograph be considered a source for? As for my statement on the need for third-party sources, if persons provide direct evidences (in this case, a photograph) of a certain state of affairs, those evidences may be used as Wikipedia sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher. If you edit the article to insert your photograph, the burden of evidence for that edit lies with you (the user who has made the edit).. --Nehwyn 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be more specific as to which reasons motivate you. Thanks!  :) --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and attempt to expand Matthuxtable 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I beg to differ in opinion from Awyong. I live in Hougang, yet I know this mall very well indeed, and have been frequenting it since it opened in the late 1990s. The impact it has on the commercial landscape in the West is pretty obvious, for prior to its existance, the lack of a centralised commercial facility meant it was spread across a far larger area around the various neighbourhood centres. Such an impact is difficult to judge from its physical size, but to say it is non-notable for what it is physically is way too dismissive.--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huaiwei - what you say is all well and good and would result in a keep, except without a citation what you say is entirely your own conjecture (original research) and can't be put forwards as a reason to keep - can you get a citation to that effect? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. And how nice it is to sit around demanding for citations when practically every person who knows about its existance are vouching for its prominence, which should surely motivate some of you to do some checking up as well? A bit of googling wont hurt. The simple reason why I arent doing it yet is because I arent gonna waste time citing sources to be rejected at the whimp and fancy of some folks here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that... but please, do keep in mind that notabiity is not "vouched for" by editors on Wikipedia. It requires sources. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also do be aware that any editor can jolly well be bold enough to help find sources for any article, irrespective of whether they are the original authors or not.--Huaiwei 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they can. Anyone can help!  :) --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does "anyone" include yourself?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You conveniently lumped an essay (WP:INDY) with a guideline (WP:CORP) and treat them as thou they are policy. There has been contestations that a shopping centre, which is in reality a piece of real estate, is not a corporation, nor a singular business, and does not fall under WP:CORP. One also notes that sources deemed non-independent are not in themselves ample criteria for deletion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites clearly indicates that company or organization websites should be treated with caution, but makes no mention that this amounts to outright rejection of the said source and hence, deletion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of non-independent sources is indeed not a deletion criterion. It is the absence of independent sources that is. --Nehwyn 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, it will not make logical sense. How is it possible for non-independent sources to be permissable, yet non-permissable at the same time? And mind telling us if all articles in wikipedia who base much of their content on an "official site" are now worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement above does not regard "permissibility". It regarded deletion criteria. From a logical point of view, it is perfectly possible for "presence of non-independent source" not to be a deletion criterion, and for "absence of independent sources" to be one. As for your observation on other articles, again I must state that I prefer to judge each article on its own merits. --Nehwyn 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article can have both independent sources and non-independent (related) sources. A good article will use both independent and related sources. The issue isn't whether or not the related sources are used. The issue is whether the independent sources are available and used. If the independent sources are not available, the article should be deleted as a consequence of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If the independent sources are available but not used, the article should be improved by using them. The best evidence that the independent sources are available is their use, but pointing out other sources that cite such independent sources is sometimes adequate. The opinions of individual editors that something is significant enough to cover carry no weight compared to the opinions of independent sources. We ignore related sources in discussing notability because related sources are inherently biased.
I also think it is obvious from my comment that I said WP:CORP was the standard. Links to essays are perfectly acceptable as longer explanations of an opinion given in discussion. The failure to use independent sources is evidence that it is impossible to write an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:V or WP:NOR, all of which are core policies. GRBerry 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started an enquiry in [1] on the application of that guideline on shopping malls.--Huaiwei 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness' sake, let us report here that said enquiry has been answered. See the link above for the discussion. --Nehwyn 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That dosent stop others from using WP:INDY, also an essay, as a reasoning for deletion.--Huaiwei 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a major difference between the two. WP:INDY leads with a one sentence summary of the essay that is an argument from policies. No such summary of WP:LOCAL exists or is possible. To top it off, WP:LOCAL says in the section entitled "Creating articles about places of local interest" that references should be included in an article about a local place of interest. So I can also argue "Delete because the article does not have the references required by WP:LOCAL." WP:LOCAL is a reason to delete the article, not to keep it, because the article is not up to the level that WP:LOCAL expects. GRBerry 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether there is a difference between two essays isnt for a single wikipedian to define, however. We are concerned about policy implimentation here, not about writting styles. If both are indeed essays, then both should be treated with equal weightage.--Huaiwei 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The defenders of this mall have now had several days to provide verifiable references of notability, and have failed. I think the page should be deleted, for the following reasons.
  1. Notability: Whether you think this page is controlled by WP:CORP or the general notability guideline, notability has not been established. WP:LOCAL is not helpful, as the proposed guideline explicitly states that it does not establish notability requirements. There is no verified statement anywhere that establishes why this mall is notable, other than that it is a large mall in Singapore. The basic requirement of most notability pages -- two non-trivial references in verifiable and reliable sources is not onerous, and has not been met.
  2. Verification: Not one statement on the page is verified by any reliable source. As written in WP:NOT, "all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."
  3. Advertising: The page as it is written reads like advertising copy, and its only function is to advise readers of the amenties available at the mall, and to direct readers to the mall's website. This fails for several reasons: (a) Advertisements masquerating as articles are not only inappropriate, they may be speedy deleted; (b) Wikipedia is not a directory; and (c) Wikipedia is not advertising.
  4. Incurable: As I've said, the page's defenders have had several days. I don't see that any of the problems above are curable, much less all of them.
Thanks, TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the article, Jurong Point is notable and verified. The article is referenced, NPOV, not disputed, informative, and has a picture. --Vsion 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I point out, that the conclusion "notability is not established" is no longer governed by whether this comes under WP:CORP or not, but whether the sources which are already listed are Independent enough to be considered reliable. As is the case for many above, I dispute the notion that non-independent sources are always assumed to be unreliable. None of the stated guidelines above explicitely rule out the possibility of reliable non-independent sources, and not one person here could proof that those sources are indeed unreliable.--Huaiwei 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change reason for nomination: To clear up the confusion the last post engenders, as the nominator I state again that the proposed reason for deleting this article is that it does not meet the relevant notability criteria. In this case, WP:CORP applies, so multiple, non-trivial, independent sources must be quoted by the article to establish its notability. As it stands, the article contains only one such source, whose reliability I have not questioned. As for non-independent sources, whether they are reliable or not, the article can of course contain them, but they are not eligible as notability criteria under WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple such sources. In the above, Mailer has already given another source from the Business Times. Let me add another one from a govt. agency [2]. So, any remaining problem? This Afd is already a futile effort, we are just entertaining each other here ;), which is alright. But basically, if the article was to be deleted, it would just be wasting the contributors' effort and reducing the comprehensiveness of wikipedia (although some editors don't care about shopping malls, but the majority do.) We can discuss forever, but in short, the reason cited for deletion is really very weak. --Vsion 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage quoted by Mailer above mentions Jurong Point Shopping Centre when stating that a new large mall may be built near it in 2008-2009. That is not a notability assertion for the present mall. --Nehwyn 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Verifiability policy: "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability." Does this apply here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, non-independent sources can be used as sources, sure; they just cannot be used as notability criteria under WP:CORP. This being a debate on notability, that concern indeed does not apply here. --Nehwyn 04:34, 20 October 2006 (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/Jurong_Point_Shopping_Centre&oldid=1137961762"