Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow Fort

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 REDIRECT to Easterhouse, where this is already mentioned. -Splash - tk 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow Fort

Glasgow_Fort (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This is a shopping mall/complex . There are hundreds of thousands of them. Suggest only notable complexes such as the West Edmonton Mall or Mall of America be included, as they are notable for size and history, not just having stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Shean (talk • contribs) 2007/04/02 12:34:14.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- agree with nomination- this centre is not notable. It could be redirected to Easterhouse where it is located I suppose? Thunderwing 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree rather with Thunderwing, though it might be added that Wikipedia has transcended its encyclopaedic mission to such an extent that it is such an important reference tool and is relied upon by people whose frame of reference is limited to their own area and to areas they plan to visit and is not globally interested in shopping per se, or in the general locale of Easterhouse. Obviously, the article cannot remain in the standard in which it currently stands. JoeKennedy1979 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the culprict! I was the one who made the Glasgow Fort article.

It was one of many efforts to acknowledge many different Scottish Shopping Centres designs, but it's not in great shape, neither does it have a lot of good information in it. i have actually been very disappointed in the way it has turned out, i guess there wasn't much to say about it, but it looks like there is two options a) save the article, complete start from stratch again or b) decide there are too many shopping centres in the world to worry about this particular one with cliched features, there are already something like thirteen of these sort of places from Bournemouth to Staines, London to Birmingham to Speke, Liverpool to Edinburgh in the UK.

Go ahead, i will let you put the article to bed if you think it is the right thing to do! (basically, giving you permission for deletion)

I. Thomson 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure, i forgot to say, i agree with Thunderwing, merge the article into Easterhouse and delete Glasgow Fort. i didn't know Easterhouse existed, tell you what, can i be given permission to write a new condensed Glasgow Fort article in Easterhouse. i'll do that instead.

I. Thomson 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• You don't need permission to add information about Glasgow Fort in Easterhouse -- just start writing. (See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. It would probably fit in well in the "Amenities" section. As an aside, totally unrelated to this deletion, some of the listed buildings like Provanhall and Blairtummock House would make interesting articles. I like to read articles about historic preservation.) So, for the closing admin, I'd suggest deleting this article and adding the information to Easterhouse as suggested. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, elkspeak. my work on the Kirkcaldy article caused bother with some, because i was extending it. don't know why, thought they would be pleased? that's why and thank you for not making me look bad. i appreciate that "very" much

I. Thomson 18:19, 7 April 2007 (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.