Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 21 May 2014

< 2014 May 18

Deletion review archives: 2014 May

2014 May 20 >

19 May 2014

Andrew Stone (soccer)

I deleted this following an AFD as it failed GNG and NFOOTY. I am not asked to restore this as the subject now mets NFOOTY but they still do not meet the GNG. As this is a BLP I have declined to restore it pending a DRV> Simple question for DRV to answer - do we now require BLPs to pass the GNG or can an SNG permit creation of an unsourced BLP? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I speak for everyone when I say a SNG can't permit creation of an unsourced BLP! At DRV, since about 2010 we have almost always required BLPs to pass the GNG. In this case the sources cited in the article were 1, which looks sufficiently in-depth and could be reliable but I'm not sure if it's independent, 2 which looks sufficiently in-depth but I don't think is independent, and 3 which doesn't mention Mr Stone. I think that if we're going to apply the GNG strictly, then we need one more independent source that discusses Mr Stone in reasonable depth.—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said 3 doesn't mention Mr. Stone - however it does. Click on Lineup. Also see 4 Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're quite right. It does say his name and there's a little numbered dot to show where he plays. I also see there's a mention of him in the fourth source you list as well.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, It was argued during the AFD were that he didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, however he does now meet WP:NFOOTBALL with a start Saturday as documented at 4 and 3. I don't know what the unsourced BLP comments are about, as the article always had sources in it, and this was not a factor in the AFD discussion; User:Spartaz was also provided an additional source along with the request to undelete the article. This seems very straight forward, and bringing it to DRV is in contradiction to hundreds of other examples where the article is simply restored, or restored and procedually sent to AFD. It's also in contradicion of another similar article for a similar player (playing for a 3rd tier US team, as opposed a 2nd tier US team in this case) that was recently brought to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014_April_5#Quillan Roberts, where consensus was that the article should be restored, and that this type of stuff needn't come to DRV. Also I question whether it is appropriate for User:Spartaz to blank the page after another moderator restored it following a possibly inappropriate request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Andrew Stone (footballer) without notifying User:Amatulic who restored the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I apologize to the original deleting administrator Spartaz for not informing him that I restored the article. It seemed to me like an uncontroversial no-brainer, especially since it was the original deletion nominator requesting restoration, and also after verifying that the source given at WP:REFUND shows that the subject does indeed now meet WP:NFOOTBALL, rendering the AFD irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remain baffled ... how isn't this not an uncontroversial no-brainer? Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a bit confusing since the deletion log is at a different title, [1]. This deletion log shows that the article has been restored as per a WP:REFUND at 2014-05-19T19:29:02. So the DRV petition is to overturn the restoration. The Template:Tempundelete tag on the article added at 2014-05-19T20:52:12‎, is incorrect, and should be replaced with {{Delrev}}. Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominators are advised, "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly." Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the nominator IS the closing admin! Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, WP:NPASR The argument that GNG is maybe, just maybe, a content policy doesn't make sense, as GNG is a subsection in a notability guideline. The argument that the article is unsourced is refuted by inspection. Unscintillating (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD deletion and subsequent undeletion. Before the season has fully got underway it's natural to want to have harmless fun and I'm sure the article's creation, AFD and REFUND were meant in this spirit. At soccer AFDs it is well known that to argue "delete, fails NFOOTY" is ineffective so experienced participants add that GNG is failed as well. Although there is always a slew of press coverage, it is almost entirely trivial so there is no real need to assess the sources – they can nearly always be argued either way. Do BLPs need to meet GNG? No, GNG is just a guideline – BLPs need to survive any deletion challenge. Unsourced BLPs may be handled by WP:BLPPROD regardless of any SNG. However, in this case the article was and is sourced. Are these sources adequate to warrant an article? I suspect S Marshall has been the first person to investigate this aspect (and I agree with his assessment). The AFD was closed properly. The undeletion was (easily) wihin admin discretion. The article should be restored. A second AFD would not be disruptive. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't agree the close was proper; however that isn't the basis of this DRV, so to delve into those details would be an unnecessary tangent. I have long argued that the deletion of articles for players, who have been signed to the first team, just before the start of the season, and who are almost certain to be playing soon, is a waste of time, and the deletion, and ultimate recreation of such articles (often from scratch), and later restoration of the edit history (if that actually happens) is just wasting a lot of resources. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH would suggest that simply retaining the article for few weeks, to see if the player is going to appear is not disruptive, and does no harm - with other recent AFD discussions having different outcomes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland ironically including for a teammate of Andrew Stone that was nominated concurrently! But as I said, that isn't the crux of this current DRV - and while I considered bringing the Andrew Stone article to DRV on this basis, I didn't pursue it, as the recreation was inevitable given at the time of deletion, he'd already spend every minute of every game named as a substitute with an actual appearance soon being all but inevitable. Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article - the original AFD 'deletion' was fine, but this individual's circumstances has changed and he is not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Traditionally with football/soccer articles we have always allowed a period of grace for articles which meet NFOOTBALL to be brought up to GNG. This should apply here as well. Giant Snowman 12:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Spartaz and I have been disagreeing on this point for many years: I consider that, since we make our own rules, the relationship between the SNGs and the GNG is not fixed, but is whatever we decide it is, either on a guideline by guideline or an article by article basis. In the field of main interest to me personally, WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG, and all relevant decisions in the last 5 years have accepted that, and we generally think so also for geographic objects. (It's a lot simpler than trying to stretch the various limitations of the sources required by the GNG to cover the sources available for the, though it can be done when someone insists--they rarely do any more for this sort of article) For athletes, the relationship between the two has gone back and forth over the years, and, altho this is not my field, I understand most discussions have gone that the SNG is a limitation of the GNG and they must both be satisfied, but individual decisions seem to vary all over the place. If I were closing such a AfD , I would not impose my own view of this ,but accept whatever the consensus might be at that particular AfD. But it's irrelevant to the decision here, since it seems to be agreed above that he meets both guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Now that he has played in a game, there is no question that he meets NFOOTBALL. I could write several paragraphs about unnecessary bureaucracy with this deletion. Putting that aside and looking at WP:BLPDELETE, this article never had negative material and it was written neutrally. BLP wasn't a factor in the deletion, so BLP issues shouldn't apply in the article's restoration. Royalbroil 02:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumter Mall

I have discussed this with the closing admin per here:[2] I do not think the consensus was delete because none of the delete !votes were policy based. They cite lack of national coverage, which is not a wikipedia policy for notability. I brought up 10 sources at the AFD that chronicle the plans for the mall when it was originally called Jessamine Mall, to the opening of the mall and the mall later being sold and renamed Sumter Mall. I think this satisfies the notability guidelines and delete !votes and closing admin simply dismissed the sources for no reason. Me5000 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. In this case, the closing administrator actually seemed to weight the arguments properly. Local interest is not some sort of notability standard, and does not make the sourcing nontrivial enough for these purposes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, The arguments put forth by Me5000 and Unscintillating are highly suggestive that this mall has received at least regional coverage which passes WP:GNG. The sources are reliable and non-trivial though many local. This is a borderline which is ripe for a no consensus close. Per WP:OUTCOME for malls pushes me toward a keep as well. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poor DangerousPanda! Three AfD closes brought to DRV in quick succession. I don't imagine any of them will be overturned, though. I'll endorse this one because when the !votes are given their correct weight, it's a pretty clear "delete".—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go, show even one delete !vote that carries any weight. The first two !votes were impeached at the AfD as not having spent enough time looking for sources to know that there was an alternate name used for the mall for 20 years. The last delete !vote is based on the objection that the keep !votes didn't find his preference in sourcing. The AfD nom shows below that, even now, he is not aware of the size of the mall. Should I go on? Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. I'd like to be able to consider all of your arguments before responding.—S Marshall T/C 07:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why the delete !votes carry any weight. Me5000 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long explanation of why S Marshall thinks the delete !votes don't carry much weight

I actually see the sources argument as a bit of a red herring. The sources discussion is inconclusive in this case. I mean, when someone says "There are no decent sources", then that has three possible weights. If (1) someone says that and no sources are subsequently provided, then it's got all the force of WP:V on the scales with it, and core policies weigh tons and tons and tons. If (2) someone says it and plenty of excellent sources are provided, then it's got no weight at all because it's been refuted. But the cases we typically see at DRV, like this one, are typically in group (3) where someone says it and a few sources are provided, and the sources are mostly not really about the subject but do mention it a bit. In this case what we have is an argument about WP:N which is easily the most-discussed guideline in deletion debates. Typically, the people who want to delete the article try to pretend it's a (1) and the people who want to keep the article try to pretend it's a (2), but looking at it objectively, I think we can all see more of a (3) here. Generally if the article topic is an encyclopaedic sort of thing, a (3) will tend to lead to a weak no-consensusy sort of vague outcome.

But I see all this as a distraction from another very strong argument because it has another core content policy behind it which is WP:NOT. As a core content policy, WP:NOT weighs tons more than a guideline like WP:N. Basically, a shopping mall very rarely merits an encyclopaedia article; the specific part of WP:NOT that it violates is WP:IINFO.

It would be a tenable position for the "Overturn to keep" side if they allege that this argument isn't actually to be found in the debate that DangerousPanda assessed, and I agree that it's not very clearly articulated, but I think that thought actually underlies what DGG and RoySmith had to say. They phrased their argument in terms of WP:N, which is normally an effective tactic at AfD, but I think it should be understood in terms of WP:NOT as well. And that's why I give the "delete" side the weight of policy behind it.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is no fixed rule about malls, but the usual practice is for there to be a cutoff at around 1 million square feet--less in some regions where there are still rare. This is compatible with the definition of super-regional in most lists. In the US have sometimes kept with less, but rarely in recent years with less than 500,000. (this has 345,000) Sometimes there is some special distinction: the only thing apparent here from its web site is largest enclosed mall in the county--a county of only 107,000. (Largest in south Carolina would have been another matter.) The applicability of the GNG to malls is useless--the events reported are usually trivial or in local sources which report anything regardless of significance. (When there is something of significance that's another matter.) There are always a few bad decisions to be found in the AfD archives, because this is a matter of people's views at the time, which varies. Where there is consensus at a particular AfD, that's enough consensus for the AfD. If there were enough consensus in general we'd have a guideline--but proposals for one have never succeeded). In most areas AfD decisions are not very consistent: if we insisted on keeping everything as non-consensus thing where we have ever had a contrary decision, notability would be a very low guideline indeed. Non-consensus means non-consensus at the particular AfD -- but there was consensus there. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the mall for the purposes of this discussion is 43 acres and 455,000 sq. ft. as per [3]. This size was used in the AfD and not refuted there. As discussed at the AfD and not refuted there ("Do you object to the...allbusiness.com definition[]? Do you have another metric to define "larger"?") the applicable benchmark for this discussion for a larger shopping center was [4], or 300,000 to 900,000 sq. ft. This particular mall met an even higher benchmark, that at [5]. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list of applicable AfDs was part of the evidence in this AfD:

Missoula 587,000 gla
The mall at westlake <400,000
Columbia 740,000
Middlesboro 317,000

Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I could see this having been called either Delete or NC. The closing admin went with Delete, which is one of the reasonable options. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per [6] there are neither "zillion"s nor "jillion"s of malls this size in the US, there are about 1500. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument was, "I checked out the sources cited by various people above." and "I would be much more impressed if you could provide me with a couple of articles in national newspapers or similar sources." In my argument I have shown that this mall is presumed to be wp:notable using verifiable evidence. Which is the stronger argument? Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Within discretion. Two things puzzle me about the close. What did "policy-based" have to do with it? Notability is not judged according to policy and no one raised policy issues. Second, if "it may be possible to merge some info" implied WP:SMERGE was delete appropriate? But not to worry, the article was so vestigial it doesn't much matter. Thincat (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:CON, consensus is only consensus if it is based on a wikipedia policy or guideline, remember consensus is not a vote. The 3 deletes only cite lack of national coverage and nothing else which is not a policy or guideline anywhere on wikipedia, so how could consensus be delete? Of course I see my efforts are futile as it is almost unanimous endorsement and yet again no one is citing policy and this seems to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Me5000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC meets WP:GNG in spades. "National coverage" is not a requirement and the !vote for deletion wasn't strong enough to invoke WP:IAR. If someone wants to create a guideline about needing national coverage, go get consensus for it. Until then, deletion of something that so clearly meets the GNG needs a stronger consensus than that. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, correct close either by count OR strength of arguments. The two Keeps mostly relied on "Malls are inherently notable", which was promptly pointed out not to be so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you mention nothing about the deletes and how they all say the same thing and were also being pointed out not to be so. Me5000 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpEdNews

If we're looking solely at strict vote count on this AfD discussion, it seems clear that the votes are at keep. The problem is the context. This article was initially deleted in August 2013 due to a lack of sources (and previously kept via no consensus closure even with the same problems). The deletion review on behalf of the editor of the site occurred about a month ago, endorsed the closure, and presented nothing new in terms of sourcing that we didn't previously have, but the article was userfied. Unfortunately, the article was quickly moved out of userspace after three edits and no real improvements to the sourcing.

At the AfD, it was claimed that there were enough nontrivial sources to build an article, but no one who was in favor of claiming as such could present those nontrivial sources, instead continually referring to a local news piece and a one paragraph, directory-style mention that spoke more about swine flu satire than the site itself, as well as noting who the contributors are (which multiple editors pointed out has nothing to do with notability). We need good sources to build an article, and we need good sources to establish notability. This article has neither, and the closing administrator failed to take those points into account. This closure, based on strength of argument and reality of sources, must be overturned. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Thargor Orlando (talk)[reply]

Endorse - while it's true the sources are kind of weak, they're sufficient to plausibly argue the subject meets WP:N, such that a closing admin shouldn't substitute their own evaluation of the sources for the community's evaluation. Which they did, good on them. WilyD 15:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the closure is the same problem with this argument: it's argued that they "plausibly" meet the GNG, but there is no explanation as to how or why. It is noted by multiple people in this discussion (as well as years of forming these guidelines and discussions that precede me) as well as prior that these do not meet the standard of what we'd expect from sources. What changed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD has extensive discussion of the sources. Repeating that here would just be pointless copy-pasting. The inclusion standards are higher than ever (and continue to slowly rise). There has most definitely never been a time when this quantity and quality of sources would've been a clear delete. In a more borderline-ish case like this, people's reaction is likely to depend on what sources are like in the topic area, whether they believe there's some spammy motivation in creating the article, etc. The inclusion guidelines aren't cut and dry, but fairly sugject as to what's significant coverage, sources with good reputations, etc. Which is why we have such discussions. And, of course, they're only guidelines, not worth getting worked up about marginal cases. WilyD 09:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is one of the most uncontroversial closes I've see. DP assessed the arguments and made what I believe is a proper close and good judgment. Coverage received by OpEdNews is significant and has been referenced by multiple major publication. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No other conclusion was possible. That standard for whether sources are reliable enough to set an article is set by the participants at a particular AfD, and the consensus carries it. Sometimes an individual will think that consensus wrong, but there's no other way to determine how we apply the guidelines than to see how the majority of responsible people who are aware of the guideline want to do it in a particular case. If a person is determined to get an article removed, they normally try to attack the details of sourcing, because these are always subject to interpretation. They either convince others, or they do not. It's also the case that low-quality arguments at the AfD can affect the results: a person who tries to use the standards: very few people outside WP look at the page" (or the opposite) to find that argument ignored, and people may even get the reasonable impression that their judgment elsewhere may be at fault also. Very strong opposition to a page in spite of what most of us feel is the reasonable solution will correctly be perceived as idiosyncratic. Everyone active at deletion process on controverted pages will sometimes make arguments that are not accepted. The test of our suitability for community work is wether we accept the results, or keep trying to fight a last ditch argument DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the arguments in favor of keep were exceptionally weak. Surely, in a discussion where weight of argument matters, those weak arguments should be discounted. As much as I'm trying to avoid a rerun of the AfD here, it's almost as if that's the inevitable result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a weak keep is a weak keep, not a no-consensus. And I think most of participants in the AfD said keep, not "weak keep" We know you think their arguments are weak, they've said it many main times. Problem is, people didn't agree with you. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if they didn't agree. The question is whether what was said was true, no? Your keep argument, for example, referenced who contributes to a site. Contributors have no impact on a site's notability or sourcing per our guidelines, why should that be considered a reasonable keep comment? What point am I missing here, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse because I was heavily involved since the last DRV. The only thing I want to say is procedural: All the people who !voted "keep" at the AfD are also people with hundreds, or in the case of me and DGG, thousands, of edits to DRV. I don't think it's right for a deletion review to be conducted by the AfD participants, because that's not a meaningful "review" so Thargor Orlando won't get any closure from that. However, if all the DRV regulars recuse then this may be a low-participation DRV and that doesn't do anyone any good either. Perhaps someone uninvolved could pop a neutrally-worded note on WP:AN asking for scrutiny from people who haven't weighed in before?—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. The closer applied policy and guideline using reasonable logic, and acted with extreme patience afterwards when approached by the nominator. There was no flaw in the closure. DRV is NOT AFD#4. "Deletion Review should not be used", if disagreeing with a closure and coming here to simply rehash the AFD arguments. Such falls outside the purposes of DRV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Advise Thargor Orlando to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, and to leave the article alone in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Potential-COI Comment: Since views were requested from "irregulars", I note I would Endorse if I were not potentially conflicted. The flaw in the OP's logic is that the previous DRV (this same week!) did not present nothing new, according to the Community: since the new sources presented, however weak, were sufficient to warrant userfication, then that outcome was allowed by their consensus and performed by the closer. And since the article was returned to mainspace, however hasty, it has the opportunity for those and other sources to be added. There is a working draft at User:Robkall/OpEdNews full of sources for review that I would expect would be cleaned up in tandem and harmonized with the live version. Therefore it seems pointless to argue whether the lights should be off or on for this article in the first month of new source review, during which incorporating those sources is an ongoing consensus work; and instead the OP should wait to see what the article looks like after the smoke clears to determine whether to resubmit for AFD, however ill-advised. Frieda Beamy (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the close reflected the consensus. I remember looking at the article a while back during a deletion discussion. I don't seem to ever have commented, presumably because I couldn't think of anything to say. Regarding the AFD, on notability issues what is notable is what the immediate consensus says it is. No amount of wise or foolish, logical or illogical argument makes it otherwise. "Improper" !votes are discounted, but that is all. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a good close. Questions like "is this a reliable source" and "is this a substantial mention" are not binary propositions, they are inherently subjective questions. In this particular discussion, a lot of words were written (including a lot of frankly inappropriate badgering), but there is a clear consensus amongst the participants that in this case, the sources do meet our guidelines. The closer has picked this up and closed the discussion correctly. I do second the advice of User:SmokeyJoe above to the nominator here, that it might be best to just drop the stick and let this one go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ::*Yes, please do.  I'd like to be able to consider all of your arguments before responding.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 :*Please explain why the delete !votes carry any weight. [[User:Me5000|Me5000]] ([[User talk:Me5000|talk]]) 18:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
+{{Collapse top|Long explanation of why S Marshall thinks the delete !votes don't carry much weight}}
+I actually see the sources argument as a bit of a red herring.  The sources discussion is inconclusive in this case.  I mean, when someone says "There are no decent sources", then that has three possible weights.  If (1) someone says that and no sources are subsequently provided, then it's got all the force of [[WP:V]] on the scales with it, and core policies weigh tons and tons and tons.  If (2) someone says it and plenty of excellent sources are provided, then it's got no weight at all because it's been refuted.  But the cases we typically see at DRV, like this one, are typically in group (3) where someone says it and a few sources are provided, and the sources are mostly not really about the subject but do mention it a bit.  In this case what we have is an argument about [[WP:N]] which is easily the most-discussed guideline in deletion debates.  Typically, the people who want to delete the article try to pretend it's a (1) and the people who want to keep the article try to pretend it's a (2), but looking at it objectively, I think we can all see more of a (3) here.  Generally if the article topic is an encyclopaedic sort of thing, a (3) will tend to lead to a weak no-consensusy sort of vague outcome.<p>But I see all this as a distraction from another very strong argument because it has another core content policy behind it which is [[WP:NOT]].  As a core content policy, WP:NOT weighs tons more than a guideline like WP:N.  Basically, a shopping mall very rarely merits an encyclopaedia article; the specific part of WP:NOT that it violates is [[WP:IINFO]].<p>It would be a tenable position for the "Overturn to keep" side if they allege that this argument isn't actually to be found in the debate that DangerousPanda assessed, and I agree that it's not very clearly articulated, but I think that thought actually underlies what DGG and RoySmith had to say.  They phrased their argument in terms of WP:N, which is normally an effective tactic at AfD, but I think it should be understood in terms of WP:NOT as well.  And that's why I give the "delete" side the weight of policy behind it.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
+{{collapse bottom}}
 *'''Endorse''' There is no fixed rule about malls, but the usual practice is for there to be a cutoff at around  1 million square feet--less in some regions where there are still rare. This is compatible with the definition of super-regional in most lists. In the US have sometimes kept with less, but rarely in recent years with less than 500,000.  (this has 345,000) Sometimes there is some special distinction: the only thing apparent here from its web site is largest enclosed mall in the county--a county of only 107,000. (Largest in south Carolina would have been another matter.) The applicability of the GNG to malls is useless--the events reported are usually trivial or in local sources which report anything regardless of significance. (When there is something of significance that's another matter.) There are always a few bad decisions to be found in the AfD archives, because this is a matter of people's views at the time, which varies. Where there is consensus at a particular AfD, that's enough consensus for the AfD. If there were enough consensus in general we'd have a guideline--but proposals for one have never succeeded). In most areas AfD decisions are not very consistent: if we insisted on keeping everything as non-consensus thing where we have ever had a contrary decision, notability would be a very low guideline indeed. Non-consensus means non-consensus at the <U>particular</u> AfD -- but there was consensus there. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 :*The size of the mall for the purposes of this discussion is 43 acres and 455,000 sq. ft. as per [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19800802&id=aIY0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=1akFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4264,4785080].&nbsp;   This size was used in the AfD and not refuted there.&nbsp; As discussed at the AfD and not refuted there ("Do you object to the...allbusiness.com definition[]?&nbsp; Do you have another metric to define "larger"?") the applicable benchmark for this discussion for a larger shopping center was [http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/regional-shopping-center/4965203-1.html], or 300,000 to 900,000 sq. ft.&nbsp; This particular mall met an even higher benchmark, that at [http://www.icsc.org/uploads/research/general/US_CENTER_CLASSIFICATION.pdf].&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)