Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayani Mega Mall

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. v/r - T P 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayani Mega Mall

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

I cannot find sufficient notable independent, substantive, multiple RS coverage of the notability of this mall on gnews or gbooks. Though it does have run-of-the-mill coverage. The article has zero refs, so it of no assistance in this regard. Article was PRODed, but was de-PRODed by Night of the Big Wind. Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess there will be sources out there, but in another then western script. Assuming that there are no sources based on two completely western-world-focused Google-services, is looking at a place where there a guaranteed no sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are sources: [1]. The prior axed information by the nominator, was the clue to identification. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need substantial coverage that is: a) multiple, b) independent, and c) RS. This is not multiple. And it does not appear to be independent. Nor an RS. The website you quote is that of a company that is "Freelance in designing websites, we receive services website creation, web design, website company, website, hotels, restaurants, schools ... etc."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There must be sources is not a valid claim, notability has to be established (see: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES) S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any Indonesian references either, although infrastructure in Kalimantan is subpar (so it could be offline) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable shopping mall. Keb25 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it non-notable? You need to explain much more rather than "just not notable". --B music ian 03:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Before says in step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." The nomination makes no statement about the analysis that went into step B6. Had this analysis been reported, subsequent participants to the discussion would have been prepared with an issue that is not now integrated into their conclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It only took me a couple of Google searches to lead me to this picture. Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link is ok, but what I had intended to be there is this picture that shows the megamall from the air. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size and magnificence of this complex is ~~stunning~~ impressive, obviously a regional [landmark], and one that qualifies for the gazetteer. The [landmark] article states, "In American English it is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance". The pictures on the Google place map are relevant here. More pictures are here. These pictures show that there are other names for the complex, especially "megamall", "A. Yani", and "Ahmed Yani". Note that as per WP:N there is only one notability requirement at Wikipedia, that a topic be "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has been cited to show it satisfies WP:ORG. Does it even qualify as a "regional mall" on the basiss of leasable square meters? Original research claims it is "stunning" are obviously irrelevant. Edison (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the previous post, "nothing has been cited to show it satisfies WP:ORG" is technically called an argument from ignorance because it argues from things that we don't know; the sentence also includes a straw-man argument that notability requires that the topic meet WP:ORG, and misses that most of the pictures I posted are associated with a website. And what happened to the previous !vote's report about the Indonesian wikipedia website? As for the question about the regional mall, I've never seen this essay/guideline; but again, satisfying notability does not require a topic to have leasable space; and failing notability brings us to the state of considering alternatives to deletion. A deletion !vote here needs to not only present explanations for why this topic fails WP:ORG, an entry in the gazetteer, WP:GNG, and "worthy of notice"; it needs to then give evidence that in spite of having at a minimum "run-of-the-mill" coverage the topic is so worthless that we not only don't want to use any of the material from the article elsewhere, we don't even want to keep the redirect. Lastly, while I take the previous posting's statement that I have done some research as a compliment, I agree that the word "stunning" was too much, and I have replaced it with the word "impressive". Unscintillating (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Qualities like like the size of something or what a user sees as its "magnificence" are absurd to use to counter a deletion argument that takes issue with the sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:30, 7 March 2012 (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.