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. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City Shopping Centre (Winnipeg)

[edit]
Garden City Shopping Centre (Winnipeg) (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)

NN 75-store, 285,000 sq. ft. shopping centre. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). – which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- In the past at mall AfD, you have also added refs to offline material. And !voted keep. It was only after you were pressed repeatedly (by more than one editor) that you admitted there that none of the refs to non-regional publications had substantial coverage of the mall in question. All articles in non-regional media had limited references to the mall. Here, similarly, you have added a number of articles in non-regional media -- but again, by their titles most if not all of them appear to focus not substantially on this mall. But rather on mall in general, or inflation, or a different mall. Is that the case again, that you are adding articles that the rest of us can't read, to non-local media, and !voting keep on that basis, while nearly all those articles do not have substantial treatment of this particular mall? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your own spin on what happened here, as you're referring to one National Post source at one AfD, in which I stand by my "keep" recommendation. One editor changed his mind when I answered your question about how much coverage was in that one particular source. The coverage here for Garden City Shopping Centre is substantial enough for the GNG. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't have some sort of hidden agenda. (It is untrue to say that other editors can't read the sources I've added. "Can't read online" is not the same thing as "can't read".) I already stated above what the coverage includes, and even if editors have not read the sources, they can see what sorts of things the sources cover by looking at what I add when I add each source. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- These are facts, not spin. In the indicated AfD, similar to this one, you added offline refs. That's fine -- but of course, as indicated both here and in that AfD, other !voters can't necessarily see the articles themselves. To evaluate whether the treatments of the topic are substantial, and thereby satisfy GNG. The small matter of the level of treatment of the topic in those articles was a question that you answered in the last AfD -- but only after two editors posed it to you, a total of three times. It was only then that you revealed that the treatment was not substantial. Leading one editor, who had relied in good faith on your addition and your !vote, to revert his !vote back. So here I ask, similar to there ... "Can you tell us, in any non-local article you added here, that is off-line and therefore can't be viewed by other !voters such as me, how many sentences in that article or articles are devoted solely to this mall?" In that AfD, you answered ... to my astonishment ... "None", I suppose, is the answer.." Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added eight non-local sources. From what I recall (I haven't gone back to look each of them up, as I do not think that would be a good use of my time), all of them have at least one sentence about the mall, and several of them have a few sentences. Please consider the possibility that not all editors approach this sort of AfD as "how many sentences?" or "how many words?" in reliable sources. For example, in this case, prior to the AfD the article looked like this, and with the sources I found I was able to build it up to this. Without WP:SIGCOV that sort of improvement would not be possible—in my view; I don't necessarily anticipate that you would agree with me. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2014 (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.
More