Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowlands Shopping Plaza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meadowlands Shopping Plaza

Meadowlands Shopping Plaza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability, and page has been speedy deleted twice already. Whilst many shopping-centre articles have survived AfD, many have also been deleted; so no clear precedent. Therefore throwing this out there to see what happens. Oli Filth 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete again. Jauerback 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hopeless vague sense here of deletion here, after all the nominator here is saying themself's: "throwing this out there to see what happens" (aka lets cross our fingers and hope it gets deleted) & "no clear precedent" & "many shopping-centre articles have survived AfD". Mathmo Talk 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - you're basing your "keep" on the nominator's choice of words? According to the last point of WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, "For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.", this is what AFD is for. Jauerback 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - You obviously have to take into account the nominator's arguments for deletion, thus naturally their wording is of very high importance. Also on another note I've spent a few seconds with google to find a couple of sources, I've now added these references into the article. They came from Dow Jones Newswires and The New Zealand Herald. These multiple independent and reliable references provide it with sufficient notability. (not to mention I'm sure more references exist if you just look for them) Mathmo Talk 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't believe an article(s) mentioning the sale or possible sale of the property has anything to do with it's notabilty. Jauerback 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes it does, because it means it was notable enough to be covered. This is straight forward definition kind of stuff. Mathmo Talk 06:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I chose this wording because, whilst I believe the article fails WP:CORP, and thus satisfies CSD, an admin previously removed the speedy-delete tag that I added, citing that articles about shopping centres "often survive AfD" (i.e. there's some vague sort of precedent). Thus I've put this article up for AfD, to see what the arguments are for keeping it. Hence, "to see what happens". It's not a case of "fingers crossed"; if there are decent arguments for its retention, I'll respect the consensus view. Oli Filth 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Itty-bitty neighborhood "convenience center, described in the article as "small." Parking for only 280 cars. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N, would fail WP:MALL the rejected guideline for shopping centers. Edison 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Edison. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep You have absolutely no legitimate reason for deleting this page.Jameeserano 04:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can not believe that even fora small area that this is significant. DGG (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The dominant tenant in this mall is a grocery store, which suggests that the mall is likely to be non-notable. --Metropolitan90 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt if previously deleted. VanTucky (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Centre is not notable enough and unsourced. Are all NZ shopping mall articles for deletion?--JForget 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sadly it does seem to be so...... which is drastically unfair, many are worthy of being saved. And this can be shown to be so if there was a chance given to put in the effort. But with so many many nominator, the time spent is spread very thinly. Would have been far far better if only one at a time had been nominated, then each could have had the discussion it deserves as to if it should be kept or not. Mathmo Talk 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that looks to be arbitrary somewhat for proposing all or most of one country's malls for deletion. Some are definitely notable see the one with the Auckland malls I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers about this particular rash of AFDs.--JForget 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a "rash" of deletions. People seem to be forgetting that malls are not benign public institutions like a school or a library. They are solely commercial enterprises, which, without verification of notability, are spam articles that promote businesses that are not notable. Not all shopping centers are knee-jerk candidates for deletion just because of what they are. But articles about for-profit businesses without any verification or even assertion of notability are using Wikipedia as free advertising. This is unacceptable, to put it mildly. VanTucky (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I have taken away the links to the smaller malls, but I say go and do the same thing to the stupid "NOT NOTABLE" dumb little malls in england that you seem more than happy to keep. But what more can we expect from POMS.
  • Delete notability is not asserted let alone established. Unclear how this BUSINESS comes close to meeting WP:CORP. From WP:CORP - while a company may be notable, not all it's franchise outlets are. We don't have articles on every McDonalds store so why should we have one on every Centro shopping complex?Garrie 08:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Big difference here, even the smallest shopping centers are much bigger than the largest McDonalds. Heck, I'll bet this shopping center even contains a McDonald's inside it! Obviously to do so it much bigger than a McDonalds. Mathmo Talk 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt. A mall that sells for $11 million is clearly rather small and generally lacking notability, houses can cost more. No notability is established. Fails WP:CORP. If there is local interest, merge to the city article. Vegaswikian 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What next, you are going to tell me an $11 million dollar bicycle is not notable because a house is more expensive? You are comparing apples and oranges. Mathmo Talk 02:44, 7 August 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.