Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrey Centre

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. The article can of course be recreated if verifiable sources are provided to show its notability. At the moment there are none. Tyrenius 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrey Centre

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

Non-notable shopping centre. Recration of previously speedied page (see: User talk:DAP384). Previously contained a list of stores - see the history. User in question has also created other, similar pages that were speedied. Speedying this page was unsuccessful, and going to AfD was recommended. Astrovega 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like it fails WP:CORP - unless we're creating articles for all shopping malls. Rklawton 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Rklawton. Shopping facilities need something more than merely existing to merit an article CitiCat 05:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• DEleteyes...c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too vague and failed to assert notability.--Kylohk 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no information about number of stores, history, tenants occupying the mall (this should have been kept before), might as well put it in the town's article only ... for now, but does not seem to have enough stores to meet WP:CORP--JForget 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• No vote as I lack enough knowledge of the subject to cast an informed vote, but if deleted I suggest redirecting to Surrey Central Station. 23skidoo 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand This looks like an interesting example of first removing content from a page, and then immediately nominating it for speedy, and then when speedy is declined, nominating it for deletion. But it is a little more complicated. In the WP:MALLS Workgroup there has been consensus in recent months that lists of stores were not appropriate for shopping mall articles, served primarily the purpose of linkspam, and that they should be removed from articles--and that was indeed most of the content, and it was appropriately removed. There is no real agreement on "anchors", the main department stores and the like around which the mall is normally arranged; this too can be seen as linkspam, but it can also be seen as characterising the mall. The initial paragraph talking about the lead stores and the positioning of the center--both where it is, what stage in development it's at, and what is the socioeconomic positioning, was also removed. I've added it back, of course. It hasn't been sourced, however, though it almost certainly can be.

For most malls that come here, I've !voted to delete; I am generally rather skeptical about articles on malls, and I joined the workgroup with the intention of encouraging the deletion of articles on smaller and unimportant ones, and the development of stronger articles--and I'm glad to see this becoming accepted. But this appears to be a major mall, though it lacks information of square footage, and also on how long it has been there, and who the sponsor is, and any controversies about location, and so forth. All of this is needed. As the nom. said, the article has been added as part of a large group of articles about both notable and non-notable malls, power centers, and the like. It is reasonable to suspect COI, and to look at the articles skeptically. And indeed the power centers and the individual restaurant articles have been appropriately deleted by speedy. But at the same time, at least two notable malls, this one (probably notable at least), and the long established Augusta Mall, the major mall in the area, with a rich article and appropriate content were nominated for deletion also. It is wrong to add non-notable content to Wikipedia. It is equally wrong to remove notable content. Itis certainly wrong to try speedy deletion on an article that makes a plausible show of importance. DGG 16:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keeep per DGG. This does appear to be a major mall and the article needs to be expanded. --Oakshade 18:04, 20 June 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.