Udini Square: The Malay version of this article is poorly sourced.  A look at the existing sources:  1. a routine announcement about how much of the centre is leased.  2. a dead link  3. and 6.  routine announcements about a store opening  4. dead link  5. appears to be a developer's website, doesn't link specifically to info on this shopping centre.  7. and  8. public transport information LibStar ( talk ) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Companies ,  and Malaysia .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Due to WP:SIGCOV and the absence of worthwhile sources.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:SIGCOV is not a requirement for assessing notability; it is just one factor in a general process that requires careful judgement.  The size and location of this shopping centre, which appears to be established by the sources, suggests that this mall is a notable entity in its local area, and to enough people generally to make it worthy for inclusion.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "The size and location of this shopping centre" are not criteria for notability.  Nor it being "notable entity in its local area".  It must meet GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are looking for GNG evidence that the shopping centre is a notable entity.  The sources, that show the centre is likely (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area; all suggest to me that this article merits its own article .  The issues with the references are not so defective as to prevent one from establishing the above.  GNG is met.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area" Again, please point to the notability guideline which gives shopping centres notability on the basis of these criteria you name.  LibStar ( talk ) 07:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG satisfaction gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable.  It is not a requirement that subjects pass GNG to be assessed as notable.  The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people, this subject is notable, and thus it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people".  Again you are inventing your own criteria for shopping centres.  LibStar ( talk ) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not appealing to GNG criteria, I am appealing to the meaning of notability in the colloquial sense.  As I have stated earlier, independent of the GNG guidelines (which I note, establish a presumption and are not determinative of the notability issue per se); I think there are reasons this subject are notable.  I think the observation that notability is established by: (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area is inutitive, and grounded in common sense Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What you consider "grounded in common sense" may not align with meeting notability in Wikipedia.  You are welcome to start your own online encyclopedia based on your "intuition".  You could then include all shopping centres that are (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also I am curious to know what are your intuitive thresholds for large by floor space area, and how many visitors makes a large number.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have provided reasons for my notability assessment, free to disagree with them.  I do think those reasons align with the Wikipedia threshold for notability.  I think its fairly arguable that this an important centre for a large number of people, based on my reasons provided above, based on the geography, building size, and the photographs and images that show the centre's size and location.  (None of which are issues that are in dispute).  Given the above tends towards the view that Udini Square is a keep , it would seem to me it is entirely unnecessary to start another encyclopedia.  The guidelines for this one are fine as it is, usually.  I have contributed my views, and my reasons, and my opinion remains keep is appropriate.  Feel free to engage and provide counterarguments if you wish; but maybe it would be best to invite other editors in an RfC if consensus cannot be reached here.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RfC's are for content disputes, not deletion discussions, which are supposed to be here.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jack4576 : This is the first time I've heard this.  You need to make it clear why you think this article should stay on Wikipedia, and article need to meet SIGCOV as a requirement to be on Wikipedia, which this one definitely does not.  To be clear, my vote is Delete unless someone can find sources or restore the dead links.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV.  With respect, I think you need to re-read GNG more closely.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV' , only true if it meets one of the accepted notability guidelines like WP:NPOL for politicians , WP:NACTOR for actors etc.  There isn't a shopping centre notability guideline that gives notability for " (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area".  LibStar ( talk ) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Untrue.  You are confusing guidelines that give rise to a presumption; they are not a requirement.  This goes for all of the policies you have cited.  I accept that this shopping centre doesn't meet the guidelines so as to give rise to a presumption.  Nevertheless, I think taking a step back, the evidence we have available to form a view as to what this shopping centre is; tends toward a conclusion that it is notable enough that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You still haven't demonstrated how it meets GNG?  Did you actually search for sources?  Or WP:ITSNOTABLE .  LibStar ( talk ) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am clearly providing reasons, and so my argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE My reason is grounded in an empathy for the persons in this local area, coupled with an intuitive judgement as to what would be notable to people and what people would reasonably expect to be in an encyclopedia.  GNG establishes a presumption that an article is notable.  it is not a requirement for notability; and as I have stated above, this subject has multiple inherent characteristics that I think warrant its inclusion for notability.  Feel free to disagree.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But we're talking about how this article fails GNG, not about the presumption of notability?  This argument makes no sense, nor does the "empathy" for people in the area, because this is a notability discussion and not about the local community, WP:INDISCRIMINATE , and the fact this article receives just 9 average page views daily, most of which are probably editors.  Your arguments, here and on other discussion, devolve into WP:POINT votes, including on an RfA (which you, thankfully, withdrew after extensive discussion), and numerous WP:ITSNOTABLE votes.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Some of the dead link sources have been updated with archived links, and they seem to also be routine announcements of store openings.  Searches of the term did not returned with sufficient coverage, and searches in Malay and Chinese only yielded trivial mentions as well.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  We don't have articles with tons of openings and new shoppes, interviews of the hopes and dreams of 100 shopkeepers, and the like.  That's not significant coverage about the mall, and of them that are in local news or tourist authority press releases.  Penang is notable, and a lovely city (I've been there, and it's one of my favorite places in the world; my alternate executor's husband was born there), but I don't see how this is any way notable.  Routine coverage of businesses do not pass WP:NCORP .  A southeast Asian market can be notable (see, e.g. , Carbon Market ), but it has to be shown to be notable.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom source eval, and Tutwakhamoe and Bearian.  The keep vote above seem to be explaining why the subject doesn't really need to meet GNG, rather that providing sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and and indepth , and showing the subject does meet GNG.  // Timothy :: talk 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally agree.  The keep voter has made zero effort to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG.  Or maybe he has searched and found nothing.  All he has done is invent his own criteria for notable shopping centres.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – non-SIGCOV and ROUTINE-ish sources can't prove notability.  I can't seem to find any sources that significantly cover the subject online either.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 17:20, 19 May 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.

Discussion outcome: delete