Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascade Center (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 keep. I like TenPoundHammer so it's tough to close this Afd as a Keep. But consensus seems to be that a new Afd needn't be opened so soon on the heels of the previous Afd. I can understand TenPoundHammer's logic of a no consensus supporting the need for a re-nomination, but as of now, the editors who have commented on this Afd seem to be against the same. That said, if there are any more clarifications required, please feel free to talk me up. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 19:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Center[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are mostly about the theater that used to be on the site, not about the shopping center proper. Delete or remake into an article on the theater. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, the previous AfD closed less than ~~a month ago~~ a day ago. This is too soon to perform a WP:KEEPLISTING. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD closed the same day this was opened . MB 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Didn't read the dates correctly.--Oakshade (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - The previous AfD, which went on for a month, was closed as no consensus by Sandstein on the same day this was opened by the same nom! Let it sit for several months and then try again. --Oakshade (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: And where does it say that it's improper to reopen after a previous "no consensus"? Is WP:NPASR not a thing? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPASR is reason not to immediately re-nominate. It applies to AfD's with non-prejudice "no-consensus" closes, which it wasn't. You could've brought it to DRV if you felt it should've been closed by Sandstein differently. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: @Oakshade: What if I just want a consensus? It was clear the last AFD was "no consensus" and I'm not disputing that. I relisted immediately because I wanted a consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though WP:NPASR wasn't mentioned in the last AfD by the closure, given the trend of that AfD, this's relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per immediately prior AfD. We don't need another one this quickly. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons in prior AFD. MB 23:06, 7 July 2017 (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.