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. While the !vote count leans toward Keep, the true policy backed consensus is for the article to be deleted. There haven't been any references presented thus far that show any form of notability for this article to be kept. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centro del Sur

[edit]
Centro del Sur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with addition of "sources" which are both primary. No non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source appears to be the city's website or some sort of directory listing which is not a non-trivial mention. The second is the mall's own website, which clearly is a primary source (anything's own website = primary source). Clearly neither of you know what speedy keep means, nor do you know what "reliable secondary source" means. Are there any news articles about this mall? If so, then Google News doesn't have them. "It's been around a long time" is not enough. Also, the article's been around since November 2009, which is plenty of time for someone to bring up new sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you forgot to cite specific examples of how the article's coverage is trivial. Or maybe you just couldn't cite any -- I did say, "if you can". Nowhere did you elaborate on where Wikipedia policies state that a city government's official website is a trivial source, other than the product of your own invention. Clearly there is someone here who doesn't know what he's talking about, and that someone is you. Ah, and did I forget to mention your own use of a mall's "own" website as a primary source in Eastridge Mall, as shown HERE? And, in case you did not understand my vote last time, I did say "Speedy Keep" and, in addition, I re-considered my decision and still voted "Speedy Keep". So I said Speedy Delete and Speedy Delete it is. It wasn't any of your business to come along modifying my edits w/o my authorization. Just as with WP:SNOW you are misinterpreting WP:Speedy Keep. As another editor said, striking out "speedy" in votes is considered refactoring editor's comments. So next time keep your fingers to yourself. Even if you were right, your striking action is an insult to the closing admin's intelligence. The same goes for your "Comment to admins" above: I will have to believe you are really thinking admins cannot figure out Mercy11 is the article's author (a misnomer as I, though the creator, was only one of the authors).
"Are there any news articles about this mall?" ... and ... "Since November 2009, which is plenty of time for someone to bring up new sources." So argumentative!! Why don't you bring up the new sources yourself as you happily did HERE for another mall article, and stop putting yourself for judge amongst us? The encyclopedia would be better served if instead of nagging to others about how bad this article is you went ahead and spent your time fixing the Centro del Sur Mall article as you cheerfully did with this other Mall article HERE.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Better sources from WHERE? I found absolutely nothing when searching "Centro del Sur" + various keywords. Where are the news articles? Magazine articles? That kind of thing. Don't say "Keep but add more sources" if no more sources exist; it's not like the Source Fairy is gonna make sources grow overnight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2 x e/c) Well, I don't speak spanish, but I found a couple of mentions (which are probably just that, mentions, though) in local media : 1, 2... Now I agree these are far from good sources, but I'll say this : lack of reliable sources is not a criteria for deletion, notability is. Especially as this is a non-contentious article, facts can be trusted coming from primary sources or listings, unlike BLPs. So I say again : keep (because sources is not a criteria for deletion), but if possible, add more sources. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did cite WP:SNOW, didn't I? I don't understand why this is such a big issue for you? I voted speedy keep, maybe it wasn't within the guidelines of speedy keep, whatever, the closing admin will decide that when establishing whether to keep or not. Now that this is said, I don't believe I have anything to add. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your language, 10 pound, this is not a battleground but a forum to discuss your delete proposal. In any event, one option was for you to tag the article POINTING OUT that it needed more citations but, 10 pound, you chose to go for the Nuclear option instead. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Closing Admin, please review the information I have put together on the talk page concerning what may be a dilution of concensus. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You bet he did it after his nomination for deletion.
In fact, here is another cute little fact: his very first move was to put a notice in the article that it was being considered for deletion. It turns out I monitor that article and saw the notice and made a few improvements to the article (added the photo, added content, and the holy grail, added another citation) after seeing his notice. Now, at that point any reasonable human being would had, in good faith, attempted to work with me, right? Well, no, not 10 pounder, instead at that point he went for the Nuclear option and in response to my good faith edits (and, VERY IMPORTANT: 1&1/2 days later) he gracefully nominated the article for deletion. There was no common courtesy to state his objection to the article in the article's discussion page, and if he had innocently forgotten to do that, he later acted in bad faith by nominating the article for deletion 1&1/2 days later when I had already started good faith efforts to fix the problem(s) he was nagging about.
So he follows a non-standard protocol in making delete nominations. He doesn't have the darn courtesy to post anything other that a Delete Nomination (and, then, in bad faith). If a person doesn’t even know how to follow common courtesy (com’n danmit we are talking COMMON courtesy), how the hell can we expect him to subscribe to anything in the world of the rest of us living reasonable human beings? And to lack of courtesy and bad faith, I add that his action was disruptive in that we could be attending to other more important matters than seeking to control this guy's impertinent and baseless delete nomination. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Mercy11, please stop attacking Ten Pound Hammer. This is the page to discuss the merits of the Centro del Sur article, not to accuse him of wrongdoing. If you persist in assuming bad faith, you will probably find yourself blocked from further contributions. I ask you, focus on the article and not on the editors. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind getting blocked,,, for the right reason. When someone that doesn't know me calls me ignorant, as he did above for no reason, you bet I will also attack back. However, my goal was not to assume bad faith, but to report the facts as they unfolded. I do react to reasonable people, so I will comply with your courteus request. We need more people like you submitting AfDs. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • There are lots of forms that reliable sources can take - but many of them aren't going to apply to malls. How many scholarly works discuss malls, and this one in particular? Few malls have books written specifically about them. Articles from the media (typically print) are about the best we can hope for in the case of the typical shopping mall. There is no "3 references or delete" rule, but 1 reference would not be sufficient and 2 would be iffy. The question I would ask, I suppose, is "Why not?" UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "3 newspaper articles" for simplicity. "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is open to some degree of interpretation, but to me, it means >2. I suggested newspapers, as I thought that might be the best chance. Books, and certain websites (e.g. newsworthy; with the 'reputation for fact-checking' etc) would also be fine. Yes, GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Verifiability, No original research and sticking to a neutral point-of-view are policies, and all are dependent on decent coverage in reliable sources. If there are few good sources, then it is impossible to have a neutral, verifiable article on a topic - no matter what it is about.  Chzz  ►  15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thanks, but I made it known before I wasn't using that as a Keep rationale and also stated why I brought it up. In any event, thanks for the otherstuff link which I didn't have. Essentially I spoke out of intution, and it turned out to be correct. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I'm not sure if this helps, however, this is their section for press releases, events, news articles etc. On the right hand sie, it lists Commercial Centers Management, Inc.'s properties (they own CDS). In total, this mall contains 62 stores. This statement, "Come and visit Santa Rosa Mall and Centro Del Sur Mall, the only two shopping centers in Puerto Rico that provide a specialized program that offers classroom facilities with particular courses for the use of the community, completely free!" indicates it also acts as a community center of such. I haven't spent a lot of time researching this in spanish, as I doubt we'll find a lot in English, however - I can state that I feel this article should be kept. Dusti*poke* 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusti, that's good information but it is also known that Centro del Sur was the largest mall in southern Puerto Rico for over 30 years - until PDC opened in 1992. I am afraid some folks here might be thinking Centro del Sur is some sort of a low-life strip mall. Fact is, local papers cover the yearly Miss Centro Del Sur contest hosted there (advertising? maybe but so is Miss Universe and no one would think of doing a AFD on that), the mall's opening day festivities in the 1950s, that it's has the distiction of being the largest of the malls owned by the largest mall owner in PR, etc. All these things are documented by reliable, third party, secondary sources, including newspapers. Unfortunately, there are editors arguing that to be acceptable as a source the source must have received the blessing of the Pope. You know the expectation is to find sources that "speak about the mall at great length", as one editor put it, when it has already been shown that the likelihood of finding scholarly discussions, even news articles, about something as mundane as a mall is next to zero, whether it has 240,00 sq ft or 240 million sq ft. Centro del Sur is discussed in the respected books by Randall Peffer, yet that doesn't move editors with preconceived ideas of the level of coverage a mall must have to be considered prominent. I perceive a lack of the common sense in these expectations, especially when certain locales, such as capitalistic hubs, are more likely to rite in-depth news articles about their malls than are (then-) agricultural towns like Ponce, all other things (read: mall square footage) being the same. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • I agree with you that the public meeting room offering at the mall is trivial, but what do you mean that one source is "directory" information? "It's been around a long time" may not be a reason to save a mall article (since many could had been around a long time), but imo, "for a long time it was the only one around in such large geographical area" is reason enough, not because of the time or the geographical aspects, but because of the scarcity point. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
More