Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakeline Mall
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lakeline Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This reads like PR copy for a advertisement. Not only is it just apparently another non-notable mall, but it has almost no references. Nothing is mentioned that would make it notable. It's not even borderline keepable. Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand off sources added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per [1] it has 1,102,805 square feet of gross leasable area, making it a "superregional mall" per the classification standards for US malls. These have generally been kept in previous AFDs for malls. Edison (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N. Of the 1060 Google News results that this mall yields, there are at least two articles on the first page alone which appear to sufficiently satisfy notability guidelines. — C M B J 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean those newspaper articles that can only be viewed if you pay money to view them? and are we to believe that you actually paid that money? Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has his methods.--Milowent (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but apparently he cannot use his methods to actually summarise their content on this page? or do they all just say the same non-notability-establishing stuff that the original citation said? if there is something in non public links that make the mall notable then add it to the article - do not just say "these links make it notable" and leave it at that without saying what in those links make it notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who made an ill-advised AFD nomination, not him. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is hard to be well advised when one does not have "his methods". since his methods do not allow verification are we supposed to just take everything he says on faith alone? are we to pretend WP:V does not exist? Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My assertion was based on the idea that we can take an educated guess at the content of an article by its (1) headline, (2) topic sentence, (3) opening paragraph, and (4) publishing integrity. The two articles I spoke of both have (1) headlines which suggest non-trivial coverage of the mall itself, (2) each contain a topic sentence and (3) opening paragraph which directly address the mall, and (4) come from one of the largest, oldest, and most reputable newspapers in the region. Furthermore, as much as I personally oppose closed-content schemes, it remains a matter of policy that we are allowed to cite material which may not even be accessible online at all. — C M B J 03:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is hard to be well advised when one does not have "his methods". since his methods do not allow verification are we supposed to just take everything he says on faith alone? are we to pretend WP:V does not exist? Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who made an ill-advised AFD nomination, not him. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but apparently he cannot use his methods to actually summarise their content on this page? or do they all just say the same non-notability-establishing stuff that the original citation said? if there is something in non public links that make the mall notable then add it to the article - do not just say "these links make it notable" and leave it at that without saying what in those links make it notable Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has his methods.--Milowent (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean those newspaper articles that can only be viewed if you pay money to view them? and are we to believe that you actually paid that money? Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nowhere near a borderline case.--Milowent (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Super-regional malls are notable; the references show it. There has been a recent string of nominations on a number of different areas of articles that can very easily be sourced. WP believes in sourcing--we take it seriously, or at least I do. To propose deletion as "apparently just another ... " , rather than as a whatever that I have tried to source , but can not find anything sufficient, is to put the work onto others, and is uncooperative. There are stronger words than uncooperative that are sometimes used for that sort of behavior. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if article creators cannot be bothered to satisfy wikipedia policy then wikipedia should not try to bend over backwards for them either Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supreme speedy WP:SNOWY keep. Is there really any question at this point? JBsupreme (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.