Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quil Ceda Village

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 no consensus. A Train take the 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quil Ceda Village

Quil Ceda Village (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Article is a description of a shopping mall currently in development. I do not think it is notable nor necessary for this encyclopedia. Beltz 11:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Although some may disagree that shopping centres are notible enough to deserve individual entries, one that has not been built yet surely does not meet this criteria •CHILLDOUBT• 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Davidbober 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, from User:Asian69 who posted on the talk page only. Here is what he wrote there: I believe this article is essential for Wikipedia. One reason is that Quil Ceda Village is becoming Washington's state top tourist attractions, and I feel that information needs to be provided about major tourist destinations on Wikipedia for the general public to research about this tourist location. Second, the sheer size of Quil Ceda Village and its anchors (like the Seattle Premium Outlets, big-box retailers, and the casino-hotel resort calls for attention on Wikipedia. I hope you the editors will not delete this article for this and many more reasons.
  • Delete Future attractions should not be documented in WP ('Wikipedia is not a crystal ball'). I could imagine that a good article might be written about a shopping center, but this would not be it. EdJohnston 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, [1][2][3] and it seems to be a bonified locality with its own government body called the Consolidated Borough of Quil Ceda Village, which makes it inherently notable [4]. --Oakshade 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How so? --Oakshade 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade; meets primary notability criterion as Oakshade's sources prove. schi talk 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep. Definitely notable, but article seriously needs editing. The article still does not contain an assertion of notability, even though the references show that it is notable. Argyriou (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it does look more like an article about a shopping mall than a community. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Looking at the refs, its a shopping mall which seems to have organized as a community (or vice versa) in order to keep at least some of its own sales taxes. Not notable as either.DGG 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment- This rings of WP:I Don't Like It. It adheres to the prime qualification of WP:Notability. If it's not notable then it wouldn't have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary WP gauge for notability. Just because an editor doesn't like the reasons for its notability doesn't make it non-notable. Besides, it's an actual municipality (see reference above). --Oakshade 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Another comment: We have an article on Colma, don't we? Argyriou (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, actually, whether it's an important village or not (and real places are generally notable by default), the political ramifications (state sales tax tussle) should be sufficient to establish notability. The outcome could have national implications. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. More sources from a wide range of publications both for and against: innovations.harvard.edu, seattle.bizjournals.com, indiancountry.com, soundpolitics.com, marysvilletulalipchamber.com, and leg.wa.gov. John Vandenberg 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:24, 27 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.