Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westview centre

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 of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westview centre[edit]

Minor shopping centre; not notable. Dglynch 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historical site and as such is notable

Delete. The article totally fails to explain its historical or other significance - in fact the section regarding the Safeway store is WP:BJAODN worthy. A Google search for "Westview Centre" Vancouver gets less than 200 hits see [1].Capitalistroadster 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I agree with the “notability” requirement or not, I must say that “A Google search… gets less than 200 hits” is not a valid test for notability. Things can be notable but have zero or close to zero web presence.—Gniw (Wing) 02:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

since Canada is a "young" nation in relation to other countries, such sites have historical signifigance in the context of British Columbian history, or "the ongoing history of canada" if you will. (unsigned comment by 216.232.198.80)

That's the most absurd argument I've ever heard. And I'm Canadian, for what it's worth, so I'm hardly possessed of an anti-Canadian bias. Bearcat 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about your obvious East-west Bias?

(*ROFL*) Obvious how? I've written far more about Vancouver on here than you have. And Winnipeg, and Edmonton, and Calgary, and Regina, and Victoria, and Kelowna...there's no "east-west bias" going on with me, I assure you. Bearcat 00:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article is chaged to explain it's significance (if there is any). JPD (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fine piece for BJAODN. Sentences beginning "It is interesting to note that..." are usually anything but, but I was fascinated to learn that within the last few months the music inside the store had changed from "adult-contemporary" to the subtly different category of "top 40/adult contemporary" -- gripping stuff. Flapdragon 14:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but let's try not to get nasty, eh? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's safe to say the article was not intended seriously and can stand some gentle ribbing. There was nothing nasty (intended) in what I said. Flapdragon 20:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry but I think that its' not worthy enough at this point in time to be Wikipedia material. Luckyluke 19:08, 3 Nov 05 PST
Comment - if we take out everything non-notable and non-encyclopedic, it's a very small stub. Unless reasonably notable and encyclopedic content can be added, I personally won't be very inclusionist. Radagast 03:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor nn local shopping center. Article not redeemed by its attempt at dry humour. MCB 08:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Capitalistroadster --redstucco 10:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all public places are notable, and this place is important in the lives of local students. No Account 18:51, 8 November 2005 (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.