Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teesside Park

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, as notability now demonstrated.--Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teesside Park

Teesside Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable shopping center Hellno2 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No secondary sources, and no assertion of notability, so fails WP:CORP. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - exceptionally notable for its architecture. see here. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Designer loo or not, I still see nothing that meets criteria for reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per addition of sources, now asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability, no 3rd party sources. As to the claim above that it's notable for its architecture, you need more than a photo in the BBC to make that claim. Do you have any sources that claim that? Oren0 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you not notice the actual Article that goes with the photo essay? Does a University website stating that the Centre has the largest multi-screen cinimas in the UK help? How about Channel4 saying the Centre is the best thing in the area? I tend to believe that Universities and News outlets are WP:RS's Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability not asserted in article, nor reliable sources. Dimitrii (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article now has multiple sources and asserts notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Think addition of sources fulfils the requirements of claim to notability. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it looks notable to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP The subject of the article possesses more than just notability as a business. As a subject of a BBC photo-journal essay (which clearly shows the exceptional aesthetics of the park), it is in fact some sort of readymade art. The "Designer loo" title caption of the BBC photo-essay is obviously an allusion to Fountain (Duchamp), telling us that this park is one hell of a Duchamp-inspired readymade. Perhaps the biggest ever. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2008 (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.