Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 valid reason for deletion provided; nominator seems to lack knowledge of the fundamentals of deletion discussions.--SB | T 06:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MacDade Mall
This shopping center is not sufficiently notable. The most likely claim of notability is that it may be among the last of Pennsylvania's indoor strip malls, but there is no source for that claim cited. Erechtheus 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What is an indoor strip mall? A strip mall is generally a group of stores which are next to each other on a single city block but with no indoor passageway from store to store. So I can't visualize what an "indoor strip mall" would be. --Metropolitan90 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Search me. I was just rolling with what the article stated. Erechtheus 07:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article's claims of notability are relevant only to speedy deletion (and even then only if it were an article on a person or a group). The criteria to use here are WP:CORP. Looking for non-trivial published works about this mall I find this, this, and this. Please look for and evaluate sources. Uncle G 11:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that it is necessary to look for and evaluate sources. I do agree that WP:CORP applies, and I think it is clear that the article fails that criteria. Note that the Flickr link is essentially a personal blog and that the medical article is not about the mall -- it just mentions it as other articles mention an address. We don't need an article about every street in the nation just because they happen to be mentioned in articles, do we?Erechtheus 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you disagree with looking for sources, then Wikipedia is not for you. Looking for, reading, evaluating, citing, and using sources is what we do here. If you want to argue that something fails the WP:CORP criteria, then you need to show that you looked for sources and came up with nothing that satisfies the criteria. Uncle G 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What I disagree with is the notion that any sort of deletion (be it a speedy, a prod, or an AfD) requires that you do anything more than look at the face of the article. There is no significant assertion of notability in the article as I nominated it, and there still is not sufficient notability established with the revision done by TruthbringerToronto. Erechtheus 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- What I disagree with is the notion that any sort of deletion (be it a speedy, a prod, or an AfD) requires that you do anything more than look at the face of the article. — Nominators should do the research. Nominators who do not do the research make bad nominations. Nominators who assert that they shouldn't even have to do the research are bad editors. Good editors do the research, which results either in the article getting better (with sources being added to it, for example) or in a good nomination that explains what attempts were made to look for sources and what was, or was not, found. For other editors' views on this subject, see WP:OSTRICH. Uncle G 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I strongly disagree with WP:OSTRICH, which is nothing more than an essay. I would suggest that using such an essay to label others as bad editors is a significant violation of WP:CIVIL, which is an official policy.Erechtheus 23:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- An explanation of what constitutes bad editing is not incivility, any more than explaining that an editor who vandalises is a bad editor is not incivility. An editor who disagrees, especially one who "strongly" disagrees, with the idea of looking for sources is an editor that one should strive not to be, because that activity is a fundamental part of the project. Uncle G 09:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I strongly disagree with WP:OSTRICH, which is nothing more than an essay. I would suggest that using such an essay to label others as bad editors is a significant violation of WP:CIVIL, which is an official policy.Erechtheus 23:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- What I disagree with is the notion that any sort of deletion (be it a speedy, a prod, or an AfD) requires that you do anything more than look at the face of the article. — Nominators should do the research. Nominators who do not do the research make bad nominations. Nominators who assert that they shouldn't even have to do the research are bad editors. Good editors do the research, which results either in the article getting better (with sources being added to it, for example) or in a good nomination that explains what attempts were made to look for sources and what was, or was not, found. For other editors' views on this subject, see WP:OSTRICH. Uncle G 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What I disagree with is the notion that any sort of deletion (be it a speedy, a prod, or an AfD) requires that you do anything more than look at the face of the article. There is no significant assertion of notability in the article as I nominated it, and there still is not sufficient notability established with the revision done by TruthbringerToronto. Erechtheus 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you disagree with looking for sources, then Wikipedia is not for you. Looking for, reading, evaluating, citing, and using sources is what we do here. If you want to argue that something fails the WP:CORP criteria, then you need to show that you looked for sources and came up with nothing that satisfies the criteria. Uncle G 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that it is necessary to look for and evaluate sources. I do agree that WP:CORP applies, and I think it is clear that the article fails that criteria. Note that the Flickr link is essentially a personal blog and that the medical article is not about the mall -- it just mentions it as other articles mention an address. We don't need an article about every street in the nation just because they happen to be mentioned in articles, do we?Erechtheus 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable failure. I added the references cited by Uncle G to the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, even with coverage, this is still just a run of the mill mall... and at least in my opinion, it isn't even all that notable as a failure.--Isotope23 19:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as none of the items introduced are reliable sources about the mall. Further, malls are businesses, and the article contains neither evidence nor an assertion of meeting WP:CORP, the relevant standard for businesses. GRBerry 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as long on claims, short on evidence. ~ trialsanderrors
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — CharlotteWebb 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as failing WP:CORP - the references cited don't feature the mall as the subject (I'm discounting Flickr as it is essentially just a photo specific blog), and I've been unable to find any that do. Personally, I agree with Uncle G that nominators should make an effort to do a little research before nominating - editors often put a lot of work into articles and I feel it is disrespectful to nominate without a little background checking, but there is no policy that says you must do this, and putting the onus on the creators to defend their articles is a valid approach too. Yomanganitalk 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't rely on just creators to defend. Other participants are welcome to defend. I understand that the process-centered approach I favor is not universally loved, but I do thank you for recognizing its validity. Erechtheus
- It's not a "process-centred approach" to strongly disagree with the idea that "it is necessary to look for and evaluate sources". It's an outright rejection both of the notion of collaborative improvement of articles, and of one of the fundamental tasks involved in writing an encyclopaedia. An actual process-centred approach would have, of course, followed processes such as "before nominating [...] consider whether an article could be improved" or "before nominating [...] investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself", both of which processes by their very natures involve looking for the existence of sources. Uncle G 09:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't rely on just creators to defend. Other participants are welcome to defend. I understand that the process-centered approach I favor is not universally loved, but I do thank you for recognizing its validity. Erechtheus
- Delete per above comments re WP:CORP. Pan Dan 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the references demonstrate that the mall has been the subject of multiple independent coverage, which enables a verifiable, NPOV article to be written, which is the point of the criterion. Here's another source where the mall itself is the subject: (watch out for popups): http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17129959&BRD=1725&PAG=461&dept_id=45529&rfi=6. Kappa 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
