Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:09, 9 October 2007 edit139.48.81.98 (talk) →Sierra Vista Mall← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:43, 11 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(18 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Keep.''' Kappa's research established that the topic meets the ], which was not rebutted by the delete arguments. The spam was cleaned up during this AfD (see ]), and the importance/significance concerns do not rise to the level of the topic meeting ]. -- ]]/] 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''Note''' The prior AfD for this article is at '''No consensus''', 10 September 2006, . -- ]]/] 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}


:{{la|Sierra Vista Mall}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Sierra Vista Mall}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Non-notable mall in California. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify most of the page's content. Borderline spam. ] • <sup>(]•])</sup> 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Non-notable mall in California. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify most of the page's content. Borderline spam. ] • <sup>(]•])</sup> 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I think that's enough to be considered spam. ''''']<sup>(])</sup>''''' 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' I think that's enough to be considered spam. ''''']<sup>(])</sup>''''' 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''comment''' Note that this AfD was created over the previous one which was closed as no consensus. See . ] 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC) *'''comment''' Note that this AfD was created over the previous one which was closed as no consensus. See . ] 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom & nascar fan. ~ <span style="white-space:nowrap; color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">| <small>]</small> | <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> |</span> 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom & nascar fan. ~ <span style="white-space:nowrap; color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">| <small>]</small> | <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> |</span> 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 10: Line 18:
*'''Delete''' per spam. -- ] 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per spam. -- ] 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' can someone explain to why malls are listed on wikipedia at all?] 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' can someone explain to why malls are listed on wikipedia at all?] 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' notability is derived from economic impact - Citations and infobox added <font style="background-color:#ddcef2;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]</font><small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' notability is derived from economic impact - Citations and infobox added ]<small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:*A community development 3-page glossy brochure is hardly a ''reliable'' proof of ''notable'' economic impact, is it?--] 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC) :*A community development 3-page glossy brochure is hardly a ''reliable'' proof of ''notable'' economic impact, is it?--] 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 ]? ]<small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I also want to know the answer to Ridernyc's question. --] 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' I also want to know the answer to Ridernyc's question. --] 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. ] 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. ]<small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. , even the cinema opening ] 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''', passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. , even the cinema opening ] 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
**If this is going be deleted as "spam" we can just make a new version anyway. ] 03:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC) **If this is going be deleted as "spam" we can just make a new version anyway. ] 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. —&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as ]. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' as ]. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
**Don't be stupid. ] 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC) **Don't be stupid. ] 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:::ahem, please be civil ]<small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.] 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' - these articles are important, and notability is inherent.] 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
* See ] ] 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' mall with no claim of notabilty, the only sources found are too local. ] 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::Why are Citations from that locality no longer as valid as any other Citation? ]<small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 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. ] 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? ]<small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as nn.--]] (] • ]) 08:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as spam. —&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)</small>
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)</small>

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 13:43, 11 February 2023

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)

Sierra Vista Mall

Sierra Vista Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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 • 17:58, 7 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 23:47, 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 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
ahem, please be civil Exit2DOS2000 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are Citations from that locality no longer as valid as any other Citation? Exit2DOS2000 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 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.