Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somersville Towne Center (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. John254 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somersville Towne Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Somersville Towne Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No references; no notability established - just another shopping mall. Brammarb (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Large (500,000+ sqft) mall managed by one of the big mall companies, sufficient sources seem to exist [1] they just arent cited yet. --Rividian (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (v. inf.) No evidence in the article of multiple independent reliable sources. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no policy or guideline requiring the sources be in the article... WP:N and WP:V just requires they exist. AFD is not cleanup... we don't delete articles as punishment for not being perfect yet, especially not when sources have been shown to exist. --Rividian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of WP:V states quite clearly: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. It isn't possible for readers to check sources which aren't referenced, and I fail to see how you can possibly reconcile your comment with the second sentence quoted, or with the next two, which read The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. We don't delete articles to punish anyone or anything, we may delete articles which have been here for nearly two years without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"reliable sources that are independent of the subject" have been demonstrated. WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." They have been found. It doesn't say they must be inline cited in the article. That's obviously preferable, but it's not what it says is required. Deleting an article where the sourcing exists, but it hasn't been cited yet, is just petty and counterproductive. --Rividian (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as I have significantly expanded and thoroughly referenced this article about a notable regional shopping center that has repeatedly garnered significant media attention over the last four decades. I would ask any editor with concerns about the presence of reliable third-party sources to re-examine the article as it now stands. - Dravecky (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Much improved and certainly overcomes any verifiability concerns. I still wonder about notability on the basis that it's just another shopping mall: see WP:N. Is the mere fact that it exists sufficient? Almost every shopping mall will be referenced in the relevant regional press, but does that make every such mall notable? Would still say weak delete unless there's something inherently notable in terms of scale, architecture or history. Brammarb (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guidelines state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" and while that's no guarantee of notability, the fact that this is a regional shopping center with a 40+ year history of serving a significant population and geographical area combined with a long line of precedents should easily push this mall (and thus this article) well into confirmed notable territory. - Dravecky (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep thanks to splendid efforts by Dravecky. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "just another whatever" could be said about every Article on WP, is it a viable reason to delete, no. WP:V is satisfied, so is WP:RS. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:02, 29 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Somersville_Towne_Center_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069631462"