Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South DeKalb 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. -Doc^g 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South DeKalb Mall

South DeKalb Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a directory. This, on the other hand, appears to be a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not in any way a directory entry - it contains absolutely nothing about trading hours, addresses, or for that matter, really anything else that one would expect to find in a directory entry. What it does include is some really information about the mall's history and unusual demographics, including that at one point one of its flagship chain stores was the most profitable of theirs in the entire US. If an article is requested for deletion, surely the nominator should be able to come up with a sensible reason for wanting it deleted. Rebecca 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejucide to re-creation By directory, what I believe Guy means is that the article doesn't really present any useful information other than the fact that this mall exists, i.e., it is another mall like tens of thousands of others in the world. Nothing in the article asserts notability, unless there's some media sources that can be produced that discuss the dubious racial claims made in the article. Tarinth 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't just point out that the mall exists - it gives some quite interesting information about it. A much more sensible course would be to put an unreferenced tag on it and give people the chance to actually find some book sources, rather than just assuming that the only source of proving notability is Google. Rebecca 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Saying "maybe someday this could be an article, hopefully" is a thin reed to hang a "keep" vote on. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming good faith on Rebecca's part, it seems she's familiar with things about this shopping mall that might make it notable. I'm now qualifying my delete to "without prejudice to re-creation." If/when this article gets deleted, if you can make a new one that has some sources to support the notability you've found, then I don't think there's any problem with this article. Tarinth 14:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't have any information about the mall beyond what is here. I made the comment above simply on the content of the article. Rebecca 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tarinth. Sdedeo (tips) 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hair-splitting aside, it's a directory listing. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Current article doesn't assert encyclopedic notability, let alone assert sources. White flight would have affected large sections of the city, not just this mall in particular Bwithh 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, and no sources to verify claims such as "This racial distinction unfortunately resulted in the mall never being expanded or updated like other area malls." Shimeru 07:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Bwithh: no sources → no article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability for its role in demographic and sociological changes in the community, as reflected in the mall. Unfortunately, this is another in a long line of AfDs created by an admin who has persistently abused his powers and privileges in his longstanding battle to keep Wikipedia free of mall articles. In no way, shape or form does this article meet WP:NOT as a directory entry. The nominator, who should know far better, insists that this is a "directroy entry" when WP:NOT#DIR explicitly include "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional), Genealogical entries or phonebook entries and Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." As usual, WP:NOT is is used to mean "anything I have arbitrarily decided does not belong in Wikipedia" by people who refuse to reference any existing Wikipedia policy or guideline that would require deletion of the article. Alansohn 08:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Further, I wish to point out that "existence is not notability", and the article is inadequately referenced. In particular, the "claims of notability for its role in demographic and sociological changes in the community" are nowhere referenced. I would encourage Alansohn to "assume good faith". WMMartin 17:44, 2 January 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.