Talk:Glenfield Mall
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenfield Mall article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on November 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability concerns[edit]
As is being discussed at the talk page of WP:LOCAL, there are concerns that there shouldn't be articles about individual shopping malls unless there is something extraordinary about them, which has been covered in non-local press. Is there anything about this particular mall which meets that standard? If not, I recommend that this information be merged into the article about the parent community. --Elonka 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are concerns, but until there is consensus, you don't get to go about the encyclopedia trying to enforce your views on others against their will. If you want to get rid of this perfectly notable article, do it through the proper processes. Rebecca 09:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- The {{local}} tag seems like a much gentler way of addressing an article, than submitting it for deletion. The tag I placed said effectively that the article should have additional references added, or be considered for a merge. Why do you think I'm trying to "get rid" of it? --Elonka 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Myriads of articles on Wikipedia need references, and there is no reason or justification for applying a much higher standard of referencing to shopping centres because killing them it is your particular fetish at the moment, as this distracts effort from places where it is genuinely needed, such as biographies of living persons. I also object to merging this article in any circumstances (merging counts as getting rid of it in my book, since its content would not fit in any other article). Rebecca 12:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- The {{local}} tag seems like a much gentler way of addressing an article, than submitting it for deletion. The tag I placed said effectively that the article should have additional references added, or be considered for a merge. Why do you think I'm trying to "get rid" of it? --Elonka 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see no reason to let a bad article stay on Wikipedia simply because there are other bad articles in existence, or because other areas need work. If an article doesn't have any claim of notability, and doesn't have any solid references, it should go. --Elonka 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article does have a claim to notability - it is a large shopping centre of importance to many people. It is, as such, in the same basket as any other article without references - there is, at present, no policy or guideline allowing their deletion on that basis. Rebecca 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion as per Elonka's comments. MadMaxDog 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:The Westfield Group logo.svg[edit]
The image Image:The Westfield Group logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)