Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000 (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre 2000

Centre 2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. Defunct shopping mall. Nothing asserting notability in Google news archives. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• A demolished shopping mall? Speedy Delete --Gavin Collins 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's fun to read about these rather dull shopping malls as of late. I'm not sure why people write about them. Anyway, there is no evidence of notability and, according to the "article", the building does not exist anymore. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The first nomination was a group nomination. Nothing notable about this one. Vegaswikian 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Just because the article is undeveloped is no reason to delete an article about a historically and culturally significant building.68.144.31.71 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)— 68.144.31.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Actually, if it fails WP:N, which it does, there is reason to delete this article. Add some secondary, verifiable refernces and that will help. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This AFD has been spammed to many users by the above IP. See their contributions. Metros 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This was not "spammed", I simply invited those that participated in the original discussion to renew discussion. Not only are you threatened that this article might survive deletion, but you're so frightened by the idea you send me threatening messages to the talk page? How sad for you that you should care so much about what does or doesn't go up on someone else's website. Do you know what fascist countries do to stop the truth from being disseminated - they send threatening messages and prevent people from talking to each other. Whomever emailed me to warn me just took the first step down a dark road. Good luck with your "victory" here. User:68.144.31.71
    • Comment Oddly those who participated in the original discussion and !voted delete were not invited to this. Please see WP:CANVAS. Metros 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sigh' WP:CANVAS isn't a policy, merely a behavioural guideline. If you want to invite the rest of the Deletionist Brigade™ to the party, I see no way in which I can stop you? In fact, I see you've already done so. Let the debate continue in good faith.139.48.81.98 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I've done nothing of the like and would appreciate it if you stopped your wild accusations and comparisons to facism. Metros 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the fact that the mall is demolished is not a ground for deletion; the total absence of any sourced notability is. The page needs sourcing to show that, at some stage, it was notable. TerriersFan 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As TruthbringerToronto stated in the first afd "Once notable, always notable. A mall that was notable when it was operating does not cease to be notable after it is demolished."  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability does not just expire, the building appears significant enough to retain an article about it. Burntsauce 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - sure but where are the sources to show it ever had any notability? TerriersFan 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto in the previous AfD. bbx 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of sources. No notability is established in the article, and very few sources seem to exist online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - this is false. Two minutes of research on the internet found several references, including the use of the facility to host an annual Armenian festival. I don't suppose you looked that hard.139.48.81.98 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the mall closed, it's quite likely that the closure would be reported in the local paper, thus notability can be established with a little research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reply Two minutes of internet research found several references to the mall, including the hosting of an annual Armenian festival. I've updated the article.139.48.81.98 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The one source that would lend me to move to a keep stance would be the one about the Armenian festival. The festival is a big event. But, it coincidentally ocurrs at the site of the former mall. The other three sources, to me, are not worth noting and appear to be lists of some sort indicating dates when stores were in business. Can you find anymore good secondary, verifiable sources like the one about the festival? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This was a small mall that was not notable while it was open. Internet references are, in and of themselves, not signs of notability. An article with the mall as the main focus from an independent source would help. Lacking that, delete. Vegaswikian 06:14, 3 October 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.