Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centre 2000

Centre 2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The following defunct shopping malls do not even come close to passing WP:CORP, and in view of their defunct status, i don't see how they could pass WP:LOCAL either. None of these are notable, or subject to the kind of media coverage that would merit inclusion under the guidelines Lurker oi! 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also adding

The reason is the same for all, not passing WP:CORP I am omitting articles which assert historical significance for their mallsLurker oi! 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. These articles don't even establish notability even if the malls were still in business, but the fact that these are all defunct malls makes their inclusion all the more baffling. wikipediatrix 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep basically local history. LILVOKA 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've omitted articles on defunct malls which assert historical significance. I don't see why the demolotion of a mall is an important part of local history. Lurker oi! 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete none of these articles assert any form of notability. Even in the narrow context of the history of a particular suburb I can't see them being particularly notable. Demiurge 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've gone through articles like Seaview Square Mall, which provides multiple reliable sources in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V for its repurposing as an outdoor mall. If this is indicative of the lack of care and responsibility with which this list was constructed we've got big problems. Alansohn 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify: so you're voting keep on the entire list based on Seaview Square Mall? Did any of the articles strike you as worthy of deletion? wikipediatrix 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I went through most of them and found them to be thorough and encyclopedic. If we're given a laundry list it's perfectly reasonable to base a judgment on the worthwhile majority of articles. Did any of the articles strike you as worthy of retention, or will you vote to delete anything, regardless of facts? Alansohn 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Alansohn- Reliable sources and verifiability are not the issues notability is. Seaview Square Mall has verifiable sources, but does not show evidence of notability. A couple of citations of local newspaper articles does not prove notability. If you want this article to remain, its notability you have to prove, not verifiability. Lurker oi! 18:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Give me a standard for notability and I'll satisfy it. Alansohn 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
            • He already did. It's called WP:CORP. And to answer your question, no, I don't think any of these defunct malls deserve an article. If any of them have attributes that make them notable, the articles do not mention them. wikipediatrix 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
              • OK, let's look at WP:CORP, which specifies that "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: 1) The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles...". Just as an example for one article, Seaview Square Mall references two articles: 1. "Upscale development fills commercial corridor", Asbury Park Press, October 20, 2005 and 2. "For a while, plenty of parking at mall", Asbury Park Press, January 18, 2001. Both newspaper articles detail the malls efforts to repurpose itself from an indoor mall to an outdoor facility. QED. This sample article is indicative of a pattern of notable articles being deleted. Alansohn 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All per nom. Just because some of these are verifiable or sourced does not make them encyclopedic. Agent 86 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You're going to have to give an explanation of why they are not encyclopaedic, based upon our policies and guidelines. A bare assertion that they are not encyclopaedic doesn't cut it, especially when written as part of the a sentence that states that things are verifiable and sourced. Uncle G 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Similar arguments discussed in the failed AfD for Kyova Mall which has a long and interesting history. Malls listed are also notable for their localities and do not necessarily need to be representative of a more worldwide or national view. If that was the case, we'd be best erasing many localised entries because they fail to present a more nationalistic view. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The Kyova Mall article scaped through as a no consensus keep. Articles which did offer evidence for notability were ommitted from my nominations Lurker oi! 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom.Edison 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Most-to-All Not all defunct malls can be thrown in the same boat. Many of the above have vibrant histories and are significant for such things as being the first enclosed malls in a region. -newkai t-c 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a blanket. I predict right now that this discussion will end in a no consensus keep, because a whole set of malls, which should be dealt with individually, addressing whether each one satisfies the WP:CORP criteria on its individual merits, have been nominated en masse. Some malls are notable. Some malls are not. Applying the WP:CORP criteria to each mall individually, on its merits, with editors doing the necessary research on each subject, determines which are which. A blanket nomination will not. Uncle G 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all now, then go after them individually on their individual merits. Blanket AFD nominations almost never give the affected articles their fair day in court. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I feel for the nominator - you're damned if you nominate separately, and damned if you nominate together. Group nominations have long been acceptable, as stated in Articles for Deletion itself. In this instance, there is nothing wrong with the grouping as presented. In such circumstances, I find doing separate nominations leads to inconsistent results. Given that this is not a vote, the closing admin can take into consideration any comments that support retaining any of the nominated articles (if the discussion makes it clear that any of the articles are worth keeping) while deleting the balance. Agent 86 00:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the last time we had a blanket nomination this wide we got the horrible Esoteric Programming Languages fiasco. If you're going to nominate these, nominate them separately, or at least in smaller groups. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All. Just because it's not your history doesn't mean it has no relevance; I agree with Seicer that many of these malls have great local value and relevance, even in their current "dead" state. Additionally, deletion of these malls will disrupt the Dead Malls WikiProject. Finally, some of these malls have been nominated for deletion in the past, and survived the deletion process - is there no policy against double jeopardy on Wikipedia? DiogenesNY 03:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep em all. Bulk nominations should only occur when the nominator has taken care to ensure that none of the articles nominated meets relevant policy guidelines. This appears not to have occurred on this occasion. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep All This is not how multiple-nominations should occur. These articles share nothing more than a superficial commonality; they are all shopping malls. Some of them appear to be notable, and thus keepable articles. Others appear non-notable, and thus deletable articles. Someone should comb through these, pick out the deletable articles, and renominate ONLY those specifically, and each should have an individual nomination. Again, there is NO WAY TO ACT on this as a group as each article has its own qualities that make it either keepable or deletable. --Jayron32 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I did comb through the articles on shopping malls and leave out the notable ones. Lurker oi! 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm only here because Long Beach Plaza is on my watch list. As a mall, the plaza was fairly non notable. On the other hand, as an example of bad design, and poor planning decisions, plus its major redesign into a more popular shopping center, that should make it at least minimally notable. BlankVerse 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Seicer and BlankVerse. The nominator should also proposed List of defunct shopping malls, which is a part of a WikiProject for deletion. There should be at least some consistencey instead of picking articles at random. --Moreau36 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I suppose this is the inevitable consequence of the "all foo are notable" school of thought. I have just deleted probably around 50 articles on malls operated by a single ocmpany, the vast majority of whihc were created in alphabetical order by a single account. Wikipedia is not a directory, folks. Especially not a directory of dead shopping malls. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment With this AfD fast on its way failing it looks like we will need to recreate the Crossroads Mall article that was the subject of a speedy delete while this AfD was already in progress. There seems to have been nothing essentially different with the Crossroads Mall article and the others that still exist, including a relevant source about plans for the mall. Alansohn 07:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To add, Lexington Mall is no longer specific to the mall property but to the economic development that will ensue. Saul Properties has been in discussions for redevelopment, and the article would be excellent in detailing out this. This further proves that this "blanket delete" is not only in appropriate, but its clear the request was put in with little forethought and was hastily put together. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I'm going to endorse the concerns of people opposed to this kind of mass-nomination. Especially since it seems there is another one put out later. I wonder if malls are becoming the new schools? Mister.Manticore 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • South Sqaure Mall: Merge info into newer mall article and make a redirect. In the SS Mall case, a newer mall basically ran the old mall out of business. Therefore, I think the little info that's on the South Square Mall article should be merged into the newer mall, Streets at Southpoint's article. Then the old South Square Mall article can be either deleted or made as a redirect to Streets at Southpoint. As for the other malls, I don't really care. --TinMan 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that Crossroads Mall has been speedied, under criterion G11 (spam), which essentially knocks it out of contention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: These need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I ask that this AfD be closed and that a discussion ensue on each talk page of each mall for nomination for deletion. A blanket case is not appropriate for all of these. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Almost all are well kept and useful articles. --Caldorwards4 07:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to me that this is pretty similar to the school situation - is every school in existence intrinsically notable? What about schools that no longer exist? What about random buildings? The Smith Building in downtown Townsville USA. 100 people work in it every day; it is a major aspect of Townsville's "skyline" and a figure in its recent history; everyone in the Townsville metro area drives by it whenever they're en route from the courthouse to the town green. It is part of Townsville's psyche. Notable? Why not? I can personally attest that at least two of these malls are major elements of the local psyche. I know that's silly, but maybe it's better to be overly inclusive and then hash things out on a more specific basis than "these are just defunct malls, let's axe 'em all."Dmz5 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. A mall that was notable when it was operating does not cease to be notable after it is demolished. Given enough time and resources, including an index to the relevant local newspaper, almost every mall can be demonstrated to pass WP:CORP. Even without those resources, the mall articles should be kept as a part of history, in the same way that we would keep an article on a 17th-century Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mallcruft. WMMartin 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since becoming defunct does not bring with it a loss of notability. If there is a reason why one or more of these malls lacks notability, then they should be nominated for that reason. Vegaswikian 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Due to Wikiproject Dead Malls. Just because the malls aren't important to you, doesn't mean they aren't important to everybody. --Darkdan 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are part of history.
  • Strong keep. All of these malls are interesting to read about. Is Wikipedia somehow low on space? If not, why is this even being discussed?Freddyboy
  • Keep. Typing in "mallcruft" and walking away from the keyboard isn't a convincing argument for deletion. Many of these articles meet the relevant policy guidelines, so this blanket nomination is disruptive at best, regardless of whether or not it was made in good faith. Silensor 08:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless articles if written in encyclopedic style, notable to the local communities as important social arenas. bbx 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All per TruthbringerTO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Vegaswikian, notability does not disappear. RFerreira 02:24, 29 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Centre_2000_5521.html"