Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall

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 Keep. Kappa's research established that the topic meets the general notability guidelines, which was not rebutted by the delete arguments. The spam was cleaned up during this AfD (see WP:HEY), and the importance/significance concerns do not rise to the level of the topic meeting CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note The prior AfD for this article is at No consensus, 10 September 2006, AfD#1. -- Jreferee t/c 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Vista Mall

Sierra Vista Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable mall in California. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify most of the page's content. Borderline spam. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I think that's enough to be considered spam. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Note that this AfD was created over the previous one which was closed as no consensus. See [1]. JoshuaZ 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & nascar fan. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N. BASE101() 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per spam. -- Magioladitis 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete can someone explain to why malls are listed on wikipedia at all?Ridernyc 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notability is derived from economic impact - Citations and infobox added Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A community development 3-page glossy brochure is hardly a reliable proof of notable economic impact, is it?--Victor falk 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. as long as it is produced by other than the shopping centre itself. May I ask why you do not believe it satisfies WP:RS? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I also want to know the answer to Ridernyc's question. --Victor falk 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To awnser your and Ridernyc question; I have always contended, Shopping centres are notable for their Economic Impact to the local community. notabilaty guidelines (yes, admittedly only a guidline) mention having effect on an economy is enough to give notability, and in my view, especially in smaller communities, a shopping centres effect is staggering. When they are constructed, during their lifecycle, even in its death throws, it is still having an effect upon the community. After the place has met the wrecking ball, I would still contend it deserves an Article because they had a staggering economic effect upon the local community. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. [2], even the cinema opening [3] Kappa 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If this is going be deleted as "spam" we can just make a new version anyway. Kappa 03:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Look, the fact that the article could be re-created does not mean that the current article is not spam. — Wenli (reply here) 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't be stupid. Kappa 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
ahem, please be civil Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.139.48.81.98 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:IMPORTANT Jbeach56 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete mall with no claim of notabilty, the only sources found are too local. Jbeach56 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are Citations from that locality no longer as valid as any other Citation? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the sources are the mall themselves, that isn't independent, another one is a trivial mention for a city development plan, and the google news sources are only local news, only interesting to the local public and that's it. Jbeach56 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Reason #1.. ok, but as for "trivial", Did you read the PDF? The Mall fills the first page, its got a picture of its own, in every paragraph its mentioned! It is a full 1/3rd of the entire publication, that isnt trivial. #3 "interesting to the local public " ... so you admit it apparently is "worth noting" to some people, am I correct? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:09, 13 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.