Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabanks Shopping Centre (2nd nomination)
- 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 delete. A redirect may be created separately. Sandstein 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Parabanks Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to explain why this shopping centre is notable due to the fact that it isn't at all notable. As per previous AFD (No Consensus 2K/3D) the article fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:ROTM. All third-party published media about this shopping centre fails to establish notability as per the guidelines; Localised third-party sources merely discussing routine additions of new tenants, run-of-the-mill renovations etc that all shopping centres experience do not establish notability within the realm of shopping centres, nor is it a significant landmark within the region. Article has been notability tagged since December 2016, without improvement. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural Speedy Close/Keep - The last AfD which went over 22 days closed by ATrain as "No Consensus" only a day ago. [1]. Absurdly too early for another one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion regarding Procedural Closure
|
---|
|
- Delete run of the mill shopping mall. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the usual minimum size for a shoppingmall to be considered notable is 100,000 sq. meters (approximately one million sq ft) This i only 1/4 of that, and there is no special reason for makign an exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. @Promethean: There's no specific rule against renominating an article two days after a no consensus debate, but you can imagine that AfD would be chaos if it became common practice. The typical process is to give it a couple of months. A Traintalk 07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: @A Train: I understand and respect that this cannot be common practice, but I genuinely believe the original AFD was valid for this particular article, hence the exceptional renomination. So far the consensus validates my renomination. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per vote in previous AfD discussion. And yes, that one was closed prematurely. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you actually believe that it was closed prematurely then you should take it to WP:DRV. I am not sure how why you think it was closed prematurely when the discussion had been open for almost a calendar month and had been relisted twice; debates are not to be relisted three times except in extraordinary circumstances. A Traintalk 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete run of the mill shopping centre. the main coverage centres around renovations. almost every Australian shopping centre has received a renovation in the past 20 years. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per the others, run of the mill shopping mall.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closer -
All but one ofthe above !voters who voted to "Delete" in the recently closed AfDwere subject to WP:CANVASSby the nom.[5][6][7][8] None of those who !voted to "Keep" were notified. Note that my !vote here was strictly procedural. No prejudice on the merits of this article,but the nom's CANVASS behavior needs to be noted. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)- Bullshit - All participants of the previous AFD were informed, including Paul foord and Jabberjawjapan who were the sole Keep !voters. Informing all previous participants in a neutral and transparent manner is not an act of WP:CANVASS, but rather an attempt to keep the participation of all editors who were previously involved, including those who I personally disagree with. Unfortunately this type of false and dishonest representation is stereotypical of Oakshade. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- You know what? I'll happily stand corrected and am glad the user didn't CANVAS. Unlike the above user, there is never foul language and false claims (graciously corrected if needed) to other users, not to mention WP:STALK as this user has been doing to me in the last couple of days, a fact I'm happy to provide diffs for. I hope going forward Promethean will learn from this example and participate cordially with all users, even those he disagrees with.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Bullshit - All participants of the previous AFD were informed, including Paul foord and Jabberjawjapan who were the sole Keep !voters. Informing all previous participants in a neutral and transparent manner is not an act of WP:CANVASS, but rather an attempt to keep the participation of all editors who were previously involved, including those who I personally disagree with. Unfortunately this type of false and dishonest representation is stereotypical of Oakshade. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I have just had the misfortune to read the "discussions" here. In brief, may I suggest a thorough reread of Wikipedia:Civility. JabberJawJAPAN talk 06:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Salisbury, South Australia#Retail where it is mentioned. It doesn't look notable, but alternatives to deletion are available for non-notable topics. I'd like some of the above "delete" !voters to explain why they don't want a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 18 October 2017 (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.