Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:52, 29 November 2006

< November 23	November 25 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

24 November 2006

Seriously!

This article was speedily deleted despite valid protest. The protest was not sufficiently examined before the page was speedily deleted, and as such, should be restored. The reason for speedy deletion was that the page was non-notable. However, there are numerous other websites with pages on Wikipedia that are much smaller than Seriously!. The site has been home to the official message boards for the entire Serious Sam franchise for approximately the last 6 years, and combined with its 14,000+ members and 750,000 posts, this is hardly non-notable. Additionally, it's the biggest website out there for the half-dozen Serious Sam games, and is the first non-"official" website in a Google search for "serious sam" (4th overall, above even Microsoft's Xbox.com listing for Serious Sam). These should be enough reasons to have the page restored and have content editors continue to add content. If there is still need for discussion about deletion, this can be done through a non-speedy process with actual discussion instead of instant deletion.

--SamFan64 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List on AFD. Minor procedural nit, is that WP:CSD G4 does not apply to speedies, so the re-deletion was technically not per policy. A case could be made that the original article did assert importance, so the original A7 speedy is questionable as well. I don't believe it will survive AfD (and I'll argue for its deletion there myself), but it deserves its day in court. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt the article was an A7; putting G4 in my edit summary was something that I didn't put much thought into. There's no point in having the community argue over an article they can't see, so I will undelete it so that it can be listed on WP:AFD. _JD^talk 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was unaware of specifics on deletion of articles and all of this until after it was deleted and I read some of the policies. I was planning on adding more and more details one step at a time. If the article is restored I could go ahead and add more details that make the page notable instead of going into mundane details on other topics first, and could also have others familiar with the site (people on the message boards) add notable details as well. --SamFan64 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse status quo. Giving it a chance on AfD was a good call. Chris cheese whine 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow AfD to continue, source citations are an assertion of notability, which prevents speedy under A7. From there it should be left to the community to decide. Seraphimblade 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming World

I would like to have the deletion of this article reviewed because I believe that the reasons stated on the original AfD are untrue. It was speedily deleted due being about a non-notable website, which I find a bit strange. The submitter said that it isn't notable in its field (which is amateur RPG creation); the site was rather large, however, with over 30,000 members and high-ranking Google results (for example, by far the most popular software for the creation of RPG games is RPG maker; while results for this software are mostly limited to product information, Gaming World is the first actual community site listed for a phrase such as "rpg maker game", which yields 1,730,000 results). The submitter also said that the site cannot easily be found when searching on Google for its name, Gaming World, but this also seems to be untrue; it instead shows up as the first result. I think that this website is easily sufficiently notable in its field to warrant inclusion. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa rank of 72,010 as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, website doesn't meet the notability guidelines for web content. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per web guidelines. Eusebeus 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to add that while perhaps the site may not be notable (all the while it is quite notable in the field of amateur RPG creation, as Google points out), it does concern me that the AfD was closed with an untruth among its reasons (namely, the fact that searching for the name of the site does not yield that site as result, which is simply false). Is anybody (the closing admin) going to clarify this? function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Again, you mistake "notability" for "some people know about it". WP:WEB actually talks about multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources. How large a site is and how many members it has is irrelevant. ColourBurst 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metrocenter Mall

For the past few months I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up. Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by admin JzG citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with his conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of the USA's major cities and 2) using such criteria would arguably (and unfairly) disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls. Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Articles on them should not be deleted. This was a legitimate and infornmational article which maybe needed some references and historical notes to improve it. I am asking for the article to be reposted. If not, I will create a new article to replace it, and will make every effort to ensure that it reasonably follows the proper guidelines, and submit an escalated complaint if it is also deleted. The deletion was unjustified in my opinion.--Msr69er 20:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the below suggestions/decisions to overturn the deletion and I will await the repost before undertaking a complete repost of the article on my own. I am a private citizen and am not employed or otherwise associated in any way with the management company in question (they do indeed seem to have a near monopoly on major shopping center management in Arizona); if employees of such company did indeed originally post the articles (I have not checked complete history of any of them) they did so long in advance of my becoming a Wikipedian.--Msr69er 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a large number of directory entries I deleted, most of which were the work in whole or in part of a single user, who is evidently associated with a property company which operates many of the subject malls. I posted on WP:ANI at the time. WP:ITSAMALL does not trump WP:NOT or WP:N, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this specific one but not necessarily any others, this article has a history going back two years and was written in an encyclopedic fashion. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (keep) - better written than most of its kind and not a speedy candidate as I see it. Jonathunder 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a directory entry, though. The primary notability criterion which distinguishes encyclopaedia articles from directory entries is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I did not see these in the article. None have yet been cited here. I have no problem with articles on provably notable subjects, as long as the definition of notable is somewhat more objective than "all foo are inherently notable" :-) Guy (Help!) 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well wriiten individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I ask, what would make the shopping center category appropriate at all, if it is not at this time? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it, Tell me where to post my opening statement (if there is another forum besides this to have such debates on basic appropriatness of articles and/or whole topics).--Msr69er 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you (and the official, yet disputed, guidelines on notability) say "the primary notability criterion...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". I disagree with your above-mentioned implication that shopping malls are not notable on their own inherent and individual merit. Have you ever visited Arizona? The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in the local news media, and are considered a vital (some would probably argue critical) part of the regional economy. Everybody goes to the suburban malls in this area (really throughout the USA, even in areas like metropolitan NYC and SF that still have strong downtown retailing districts). That alone seems to fit the definition of notable as it relates to the economy of Phoenix and the American West. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read User:Uncle G/On notability for the reasoning behind this. Wikipedia is not a directory (of malls or anything else), or indeed an indiscriminate collection of information. Proof of existence is not sufficient, and arguments along the lines of "all foo are inherently notable" are statements of doctrine, not arguments from policy. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Wikipedia is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. If you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted. You have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:NOT violations are not speedies. The issue here is whether it was spam. Secondly, the article contained text along the lines of "The mall was built in 1973, making it one of the older malls in the Valley. When it opened as the first two-level, five-anchor mall in the U.S. it was considered one of the largest shopping centers in the United States.", a list of its tenants in 1973, the mention that "Metrocenter was featured in the film Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, as the San Dimas Mall", and its history over the last three years. In my books this is neither spam nor an A7. JYolkowski // talk 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list on AfD if notability is being questioned. bbx 10:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion I agree completely with JzG's reasoning. Eusebeus 11:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD. A colorable case has been made that this is not a speedy, so I don't see the harm in evaluating the article on its merits. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, no relist. When looking at the article through Special:Undelete, the article was not an advertisement, by any means, so the CSD deletion did not apply. Also, as it has been brought up above, the mall is a part of regional history (and I know that, I live in the area), and was featured as part of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, so it does have at least a stronger sense of notability than many other structures we have kept. Tito xd^(?!?) 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD it. It seems there's some contention as to whether the article qualifies as spam or not, so we should let the debate proceed. I quite agree with Guy regarding WP:NOT, but that's not a speedy criterion. I'm also not terribly impressed with "repost it or else I will" threats, but an AfD resulting in deletion would allow for speedying recreations, so that's that taken care of, too. Shimeru 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete JzG seems to be an administrator on a rampage. He has deleted multiple such articles, in many cases abusing the WP:CSD process to delete articles without bothering to attempt to have the articles improved or trying to achieve consensus on the subject via the AfD process. As stated as WP:CSD, the speedy delete approach is to be reserved for "cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved...", a policy that simply does not fit this, or the overwhelming majority of the other articles he has deleted in this manner. His talk page is littered with requests from users to explain his deletions and arrogant responses patronizingly ignoring the requests. As JzG seems to have extremely strong views on the subject that are way out of the consensus reached on this matter, and has consistently demonstrated that he will impose these views, regardless of consensus, it is hard to justify his continuing adminship. As a start this article should be undeleted, and face AfD, only if and AfD is appropriate. The bigger issue is dealing with an admin out of control who has made himself judge, jury and executioner. Alansohn 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AFD. This was not a valid speedy; WP:ITSAMALL is not (sadly) a policy. Proto::type 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per above, notability is questioned and should go to AFD if necessary. Silensor 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Dream

(Single by Keane) I firstly started this article a months ago before exactly knowing the Music guidelines on this Wikipedia. As it was not a single release it was soon redirectered by RasputinAXP, thing I finally accepted. A week ago, I recreated the article though it wasn't an official release yet but a rumour. The Mekon created an AfD process in order to delete the article. Though I firstly strongly opposed finally I accepted his AfD. However, on November 22 the Keane official page gave official details for the single release so now there is an official source and a reason to keep the article here: [1]. I'd only wish a quick consensus to remove protection for the page and create the article as now, as I've told, there is an official source. Fluence 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - premise for deleting the article during the AfD was that it was crystal-balling, which might have been the case back then. However, seeing that an official reliable source has confirmed release date of the single [2], I think there is now a valid raison d'être for this article to be undeleted. Kimchi.sg 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per Kimchi. As an aside, Fluence largely knows more about Keane stuff than anyone I've encountered, and I'd suggest giving him a little more credit on the Keane stuff in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, however (badlydrawnjeff), please don't give the user free run to recreate articles as he has been. The article WAS speculation, it WAS poor quality (and recreations still are, IMHO), and the user needs to learn how Wikipedia works and what belongs here. He also needs to understand that it isn't a game, and isn't about "winning". Nphase 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AfD was clearly in favor of deletion. Only "source" currently cited is primary-when someone besides the artist's own site has seen fit to comment on this, it can be considered notable and reliably sourced. Seraphimblade 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in fact, Keanemusic.com was the second source to publish this, a couple of hours after the first one in spite is the artist's official website. Please Seraphimblade check the Music guidelines on the Wikipedia where every official single released is notable, of course if it has been officially announced.--Fluence 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, existency has been confirmed. (Sorry to have made another request, I did not see this one, as is wasn't indicated on the talk page.) Jo9100 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
-====[[Paradise Valley Mall]]====
-:{{la|Paradise Valley Mall}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradise Valley Mall|AfD]])
-The article [[Paradise Valley Mall]] needs to be reinstated on the same grounds as the below request concerning [[Metrocenter Mall]]. I disagree that any of the articles on the Phoenix [[Westcor]] malls qualify as spam, regardless of whether or not they were originally created or intended as category lists or spam or marketing. I made substantial edits to the article [[Paradise Valley Mall]] over the last six months, using period magazine articles as supporting materials, which in my opinion make it much more encyclopedic in tone than the original and therefore appropriate for Wikipedia.
-I feel that the individual articles on ANY and ALL shopping malls merit enough cultural and economic significance in the USA and (arguably internationally) to be totally and completely appropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not they were created as part of a directory. These articles serve the exact same purpose as (completely acceptable and included) articles on major skyscrapers, sports teams, colleges, universities, companies, etc. Are we to assume that these topics are taboo on Wikipedia as well? I respectfully continue to disagree with deletion of ANY shopping mall articles and will repost specific ones I have edited (as I have time), or otherwise take an interest in, and escalate complaints to senior personnel if they continue to disappear. My intent is to provide articles of general interest and relevance, and the articles you deleted more than fit that bill. I'm sorry to be a pain, but in my opinion this is too important of a topic to accept any decision to speedily delete.
-What is the criteria/standard for articles on shopping centers? Are any such articles considered appropriate at all on Wikipedia? It would be unfortunate if not. I have come to understand that the whole subject itself has been a serious point of contention among Wikipedians. A clarification of criteria I believe would serve as valuable guidance.--[[User:Msr69er|Msr69er]] 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-: On the talk page for [[Westcor]] I posted a comment about this dispute, some of which reads:
-:: It is generally known, by laypeople and scholars alike, that shopping centers are places of strong social, cultural and economic significance, especially in the USA. In the case of the Westcor properties, these malls are the economic engine that literally provides life or "death" to whole neighborhoods and communities. Neighborhoods in Arizona, as well as much of the Western United States as a whole, thrive or decline based on the health, or lack thereof, of their malls; such a critically important social (and economic) phenomenon alone justifies the relevance - and unbiased inclusion - of such articles on Wikipedia. Many "multiple non-trivial published works" are generated on a regular basis through the news media to document historical and timely news developments concerning these malls. All of them can, and have been used in several cases, as reference material for these articles.--[[User:Msr69er|Msr69er]] 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-::: A statement of doctrine.  Where is the multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? A book, for example, on the history of this mall? Even a book on the history of malls in the area with a chapter on this one? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 10:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::: I am not aware of books (other than possibly locally or regionally published works) that would cover these facilities. However, several articles do exist in locally-published newspapers and magazines. There may even be studies from [[Arizona State University]] or governmental agencies discussing economic impact and importance of these malls locally. It sounds like Wikipedia is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. If you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted. You have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--[[User:Msr69er|Msr69er]] 11:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-::: A lot of things are generally known, and many of them far detached from reality (urban legends for instance). [[WP:V|Verifiability]] is the key --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' and list on AfD if notability is being questioned. [[User:Bbx|bbx]] 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', unless a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] asserting subject's [[WP:N|notability]] per the [[WP:CORP|corporate notability guidelines]] can be established. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 11:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''' per the policies cited above. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 11:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Request'''.  What is the notability claim for this mall?  Why (in a sentence or two) should anyone who isn't a local care about it?  What is there to say about this specific mall that differentiates it from others of its class?  I am only looking to see if there is a colorable claim that should be evaluated on AFD.  [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 13:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn/undelete''' and pursue other avenues if required.  This article has a reasonably long history and was not written in a spammy tone.  It was unreferenced, but that's what cleanup is for.  [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''', per JYolkowski. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza |<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]])</sup> 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. Whenever someone attempts to create a new article, there is a clear notice at the "Create new article" page that says, ''Articles that do not cite reliable published sources will be deleted.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xyzq&action=edit]  I'm in agreement with the concept of giving an article some time to improve, but in the case of an article about a commercial entity, that makes no claim to notability, and provides no reliable sources, a speedy-delete seems clearly justified. I see nothing improper here. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' JzG seems to be an administrator on a rampage. He has deleted multiple such articles, in many cases abusing the [[WP:CSD]] process to delete articles without bothering to attempt to have the articles improved or trying to achieve consensus on the subject via the AfD process. As stated as [[WP:CSD]], the speedy delete approach is to be reserved for '''"cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved..."''', a policy that simply does not fit this, or the overwhelming majority of the other articles he has deleted in this manner. As JzG seems to have extremely strong views on the subject that are way out of the consensus reached on this matter, and has consistently demonstrated that he will impose these views, regardless of consensus, it is hard to justify his continuing adminship. As a start this article should be undeleted, and face AfD, only if and AfD is appropriate. The bigger issue is dealing with an admin out of control who has made himself judge, jury and executioner. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse (my) deletion'''.  Process was followed.  It is most assuredly ''not'' the responsibility of Deletion Review to determine broad-ranging policy with regards to whether or not "''... individual articles on ANY and ALL shopping malls merit enough cultural and economic significance ... to be totally and completely appropriate for Wikipedia''".  DRV handles queries and issues regarding the correct execution of policy, i.e., whether process was carried out; it is not AFD II.  [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 09:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion'''. I concur with Proto. From what I've seen, the proper policies and procedures were followed. Ad hominem attacks or assumptions of bad faith against the admin don't help either. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn'''.  Not spam, and if it looked spammy, it could be edited. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion'''. It's a mall. Not notable. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-::::*'''Comment''' I disagree with the above endorse deletion. Malls ARE indeed quite notable, at least many of them. Please see my arguments above. To say thay are not, without any explanation or even citing guidelines, reflects bias on the part of an editor and not on the merits of the article or even the mall itself, which IMO is highly unfair. I further disagree that Wikipedia should be governed solely by personal bias of individual editors and admins, but rather on the objective criteria available here, as seems to be the good faith intent even of the admin who made the speedy delete. I can agree and accept that many malls are not notable and probably deserve a listing on AfD, but IMO (and especially after reading [[WP:CSD]]) a speedy delete is an overreaction. I would 100 percent agree with Alansohn's above interpetation of the intent of [[WP:CSD]] and would hope that in the future, articles be thoroughly vetted at the admin level, and carefully measured against all the criteria before a decision is made to delete...with the user notified on his/her talk page of the decision to speedy and given the opportunity to state his/her case here on DRV AND given a chance to rewrite the article and resubmit, even if it is a resubmit to AfD itself (and even if someone different than the original editor makes the changes). I had to hunt around for DRV when a quick note and link on my talk page would have been helpful... After reading CSD, I still feel that a speedy delete of the two articles I listed here was not justified. The articles were:
-* neither patent nonsense nor vandalism.
-* not blatant advertising, at least in the manner I attempted to edit the articles
-* and IMO most definitely notable. According to the "non-criteria" at the bottom of WP:CSD: "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum..." I would strongly argue that both of the articles I submitted to DRV made basic assertions to notability which could have been futher supported by inclusion of "reliable secondary sources" of a "non-trivial nature" such as newspaper articles on each mall. In fact, for [[Paradise Valley Mall]] I used a locally produced lifestyle magazine as a source (I may not have cited it but that is easy enough to do); the article was produced by the magazine staff and was not an advertisment produced by the mall developer/owner. And again, I maintain that on a basic level, in at least half of the cases, malls ARE notable in and of themselves and their notability in many cases can be proven.
-In the long run, a larger debate and consensus on whether articles on individual malls should be allowed at all on Wikipedia, as a matter of policy - not just a guideline - IMO needs to happen or else these arguments will continue to arise. Please see my request for clarification of the criteria on [[WP:CORP]] as it specifically relates to malls. It seems like I have become an advocate for the inclusion of malls on Wikipedia, and I don't think I mind that role one bit. But if they are not allowed, policy needs to be clear about that so editors have no "leg to stand on" to challenge a speedy they disagree with.--[[User:Msr69er|Msr69er]] 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' per JYolkowski, bbx, and Alansohn.  [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Seriously!]]====