Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradise Valley 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradise Valley Mall

This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus narrowly overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per precedent; far less notable malls have had articles written about them. WP:V is not criteria for deletion; it's criteria for improving the article. 23skidoo 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability - if less notable malls have articles, that may only mean that those articles need to be deleted. WP:V is one of the two most important policy reasons for deletion (the other being copyright violations) - if verifiability is not possible, the only article we cna have is blank, so deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An old regional mall with 1.2 million leasable square feet, which is the anchor for a residential community. I added 2 references. There are lots of additional routine articles in the state papers about routine events such as stores opening which I did not see the point of adding.Edison 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty old large mall- chance of non-trivial coverage approaches 1. --- RockMFR 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick search on Lexis yields 125 newspaper articles, so there's definitely enough to keep some people busy if they want to write it. The existence of verifiable sources is a non-issue here. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and note that notability and Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability are not policies nor are they guidelines, they are essays. Silensor 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a substantial article that makes a strong case for establishing the notability of this mall. The additional sources help, and adding a few as references in the text of the article will only improve it further. Rereading the actual article in question makes the CSD seem even more unjustifiable. Alansohn 07:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  If this is the same article that was speedy deleted by JzG, and I hope that it wasn't, I am seriously questioning his judgement as an administrator. I'll assume good faith for now.  :-( Silensor 07:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  It is not the same article, don't worry. This is referenced, and asserts notability. The version JzG deleted accomplished neither of these things. Proto::type 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• No !vote looks different, but I still think it fails to establish substantive notability. However, just to address Silensor's point, I did post on the admin noticeboard that there were a large number of articles, and some valid subjects may have been swept up in the process. The problem was not, fundamentally, the directory entiries, it was Dvac (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and his spamming campaign. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 30 November 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.