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 wasKeep as per WP:SNOW even the nominator has indicated that the article has been improved and no longers believes it should be deleted. Gnan garra 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karrinyup Shopping Centre[edit]

Page is about an Australian shopping center. It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Actually, there's hardly any article within the article; the bulk of the page is a listing of stores within the shopping center, which seems to be right around the margins of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I took a look to see whether it could be expanded sensibly, but the media mentions I found were fairly trivial in nature. As such, I'm not particularly sanguine about its prospects for expansion, and I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that right now the article currently does not demonstrate the notability of the centre. I will withhold stating whether or not I believe that the article should be kept or deleted until editors with some knowledge of this centre are given a few days to determine if this article can be salvaged. I also agree that the tenant lists are not in keeping with WP:NOT and WP:TENANTS. Skeezix1000 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the significant improvements to the article since the AfD was made, I would now say that we should keep the article. Skeezix1000 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:TENANTS is an essay. Orderinchaos 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? How does that make the centre notable? Skeezix1000 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not community standards (merely one person's or a few people's opinion), but the use of them in this way makes it look like it has some sort of official status. I've been guilty of it in the past too, for the record. Orderinchaos 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It does not seem particularly notable to me, and there are no sources within the article to demonstrate its notability. Yes, the references tag is there for that reason (added after you attempted to prod the article). I'm on the phone right this moment to a friend with Factiva access, and we have 387 articles in front of us, from which we have so far found at least 20 significant references which pass both the WP:RS and WP:N tests, and provide a reasonable history of the article. This includes local and national papers of record, reports on the attendance of significant international musicians for events, international journals relevant to the subject matter, and even comments made to the media by significant members of the the state's legislative bodies. Am I the only one who can (after we get the time to perform a significant rewrite of the article which has been on a project to do list for a while) see a Snowball keep in our future? Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quickly get a few of those sources in the article, demonstrating the centre's notability, and then this shouldn't be a problem. More comprehensive article clean-up and addition of sources could wait until later for now. Skeezix1000 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've got full text copies of all those articles in question sitting in my inbox. In about 24hrs time baring the end of the world getting in my way they will be included. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. If they're as good as you say they are, and they make this into an actual article that demonstrates notability, I'd have no problem withdrawing the nom. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would simply refer to the comments of Orderinchaos below, This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. This is already staring to smell like WP:POINT. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, good grief. I noticed the article while I was sorting stubs that had been misfiled under ((business-stub)), and I nominated it because it didn't seem notable and when I looked the only articles I found were either about its owners or trivial mentions. Since I had already looked for sources and didn't think there were any good ones, I wasn't impressed by the tag requesting sources, and I decided to bring it to AFD. Check the contribution log, and try assuming some good faith next time, eh? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for the WP:SNOW thing, there have only been four commenters on the AFD. Of those, two think it should be kept (and have promised to provide sources, which are still forthcoming), one thinks it should be deleted, and one hasn't decided one way or the other. How is that a consensus? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Note it was nominated at 23:00 WST and 01:00 AEST. Only those of us crazy enough to be up at this hour even noticed it. Orderinchaos 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think this AfD gives rise to WP:SNOW or WP:POINT. An article that consists almost entirely of tenant lists merits deletion, IMO. There is nothing to the current article. The AfD has had a positive result -- sources showing the notability of the centre will be added shortly. Skeezix1000 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:N - clearly meets notability criteria, being a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city with 1.6 million people (was 3rd biggest overall in Perth, down to 5th or 6th now). This should be a WP:SNOW case - AfD is not a replacement for cleanup tags. As TheWinchester says, there are ample sources available to improve the article, although many of them were not available until recently as the uni-subscribed news service most of us use didn't keep publications older than 2001-02 until very recently, and most of the story which makes this shopping centre notable happened last decade. Orderinchaos 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'know, when I look at WP:N, I don't actually see any discussion of shopping centers at all. There IS a bit about widespread media coverage, though, so if you've found some sources that I couldn't reach over the pond here, then by all means add them to the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think a shopping center is notable enough on its own to be mentioned either outside of a page devoteed to the company who owns it and/or on a page of the location if its notable. Maybe if someone famous died there or if there was a huge lawsuit that made it news worthy, but I don't see anything like that. NobutoraTakeda 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1][reply]
~~Delete~~. Don't know why there's the calls above for a WP:SNOW closure. In any case, the claims of notability above would be infinitely more helpful if sources were actually given and not just implied. If the sources are all older (ie. dead tree sources) that's fine, but they still must be given. Barring the discovery of actual sources to support the claims of notability I can only argue to delete this one. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is appropriately marked as a stub at the present moment. As said previously, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Orderinchaos 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per OIC again as above, AfD is not a substitute for the placement of appropriate clean-up tags on an article and allowing time and good nature to take it's course. Literally, the project will for the next 24hrs have to kick this article in the pants because a user went WP:IDONTLIKEIT and didn't use clean-up tags. Additionally, how can you possibly pass judgement on something which you admit to not even seeing yet which you know is being worked on? So far, the most sensable comment I have seen here is from Skeezix1000 who defers his judgement pending the appropriate opportunity for clean-up. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that it looks like the article can be saved. I suspected that would be the case, which is why I held off stating my opinion. But as stated below, I don't believe that the AfD was inappropriate. Even a stub needs to show the notability of its subject. Clean-up tags are of limited use where there is nothing to clean-up. Right now, there is nothing in the article that suggests that WP:N is met, or even could be met. I'm glad that editors with knowledge of the centre have stepped in, but in the meantime the AfD should not have been unexpected. Skeezix1000 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating two different things here. I didn't nominate it for deletion solely because it hadn't been improved. I nominated it for deletion because it had not been improved and (in my judgement) was not capable of being improved, due to a lack of sources. If there aren't any sources, then it doesn't matter how long a cleanup tag sits on the page, since any party looking to improve it will be frustrated by the same problems that confronted me (unless there's somtething better out there, as you assert). As for your claim of dirty pool on the article's timeline, you created it back in December, and have had numerous opportunities to improve it in the intervening time (assumuing for a moment that it can be made into a good article, a point I'm not willing to concede until I actually see some RSes). It's not like I spotted a preliminary draft on Newpages and ambush-tagged it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:N. The question we are asking here is, is the subject notable? The answer is yes, a 54,000 sqm shopping centre in a city as isolated as Perth is clearly so. Only two comparable shopping centres exist in the region in consideration. Never mind that the article is clearly a stub - that is an issue for cleanup, and obviously something that would have been looked at given time. Editors are not only usually busy people but also volunteers and work on a range of article types, and by far the majority of articles on Wikipedia are at present stubs, so demanding they be developed at the sole discretion of another editor at the other side of the world is somewhat disingenuous. WP:DEL, Wikipedia's deletion policy, expressly states: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." I am concerned that this AfD (which started off as a proposed deletion!) and some of the comments above are an example of rampant Deletionism which has become the norm in recent times. I note that it is presently 12:36am in Perth, so most likely editors who actually are familiar with the subject, or with shopping centres in Australia more broadly, are unlikely to comment for some hours. Zivko85 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me what the time has to do with it. No one is going to close this AfD in less than 24 hours. As for this centre being notable, there is almost nothing in the article except tenant lists. There is nothing in the current article to suggest it can be improved, and the article requires far more than a mere "clean up". So the above quotes from WP:DEL aren't really relevant. It's great that editors who have a knowledge of the centre have come forward to suggest that sources evidencing notability can be found and added, but in the meantime, given the article's current state, I would suggest that we all spend more time finding the necessary sources and re-reading WP:AGF, rather than accusing others of inappropriate conduct. Skeezix1000 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The time is relevant as people are trying to use the *current* state of play to determine consensus, as stated above by at least one contributor. It would be nice to see some WP:AGF shown towards the article's contributors, who more than likely were not familiar with the resources (Orderinchaos has suggested above they became available only very recently) and created the article to fill a redlink, hoping that people with more knowledge of the area would fill in the gaps. Zivko85 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But of course the current state of the article is relevant. That's what an AfD is. If the article is improved, then the AfD is either withdrawn or the likely consensus is to keep the article. Right now, the article does not meet WP:N or WP:V - making it a possible AfD candidate. WP:V and WP:N are not contingent on whether or not one subscribes to the right database, and the scope of that database. I would have thought that if this centre is as notable as some are suggesting, a simple (and free) Google search would uncover some evidence of notability. As far as I can tell, there is no policy that suggests that WP:N and WP:V can be ignored until such time as "people with more knowledge" come forward to "fill the gaps". Even a stub has to show some evidence of notability. WP:STUB states very clearly that "small articles with little properly sourced information or with no inherent notability may end up being nominated for deletion or be merged into another relevant article" and "The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted." My main message here: we need to spend more time making the article comply with WP:N and WP:V, rather than taking offence at the AfD.Skeezix1000 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is size notable? My parent's property is larger than that and its not notable. The page lacks any notable events in history and has no special features that makes it more than just a generic shopping center. NobutoraTakeda 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your parent's home has 54,000 square meters of living space? How many bedrooms and how many bathrooms? Seriously, the figure for a mall should be "Gross leasable area" or GLA , not the real estate including the parking lot, landscaping, etc. See Shopping mall for a discussion of the industry standards for "region" and "superregional malls" based on GLA. It is one quick sort to help with deletion of articles about local malls. Regional or superregional malls are more likely to have reliable verifiable and independent sources with substantial coverage, which would be evidence of notability. Edison 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notable events in history? That's a big call to make given editors above have found *387* media references to it. Even my cursory checks bring up major deals involving two of Australia's largest companies, Multiplex and AMP Limited, going well into the billions, and some past involvement with key players in WA Inc in the mid-1980s. In light of the Sunday trading arguments in Perth (which went to a state referendum and lost), it's interesting that Karrinyup was the first ever centre to trade on Sundays. Zivko85 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those events aren't notable for the shopping center but for the companies in question. Notability doesn't rub off through association, or every movie star's childhood friend is notable as with anyone who was in a five block radius of the Star Wars movie studio. NobutoraTakeda 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here, no references affirming notability per WP:CORP. Right now this article seems little more than spam. Delete, or merge into article about parent community. --El on ka 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to "Keep" from "Delete", as the article is now adequately sourced. I would also echo what some other editors are saying, in that I am disappointed in the amount of rudeness and personal attacks on this page. There seems to be a steady stream of Australia-related articles that are created in very poor shape (looking like little more than spam). Repeated requests to expand these articles are often just deleted with uncivil edit summaries. Then when the article actually goes to AfD after months of trying other avenues, there's suddenly a rapid burst of attention and even more personal attacks. Sometimes sources appear at that point and sometimes not, but the sour attitude involved is really not helping matters. In my opinion, the clear solution is this: When creating any article, always include at least one third-party source which affirms that subject's notability. If you can't provide a source, don't create the article. And especially don't create the article if it's just about a commercial entity, where the only source is to the entity's own website. If you do this, it looks like spam, and it's going to get tagged for deletion, just like thousands of other articles on Wikipedia that are tagged or deleted every day. --El on ka 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka. I tend to agree that some of the comment on Australia-related deletions can get away from the topic at hand onto the edge of personal attacks. My only advice there is to take action on the personal attacks as and when they occur. While I have seen some bitter comments on this current AfD I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a personal attack.Ga rr ie 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. No sources. the_undertow ^talk 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a directory, plus no assertion of notability. SamBC 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article as it exists is just a directory listing. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG for notability. If this is "a very major shopping centre in a fast-growing region of a city" as claimed above, then surely the people creating the article can find nontrivial third party news sources that say something notable about it. If they can't or won't, then there's no point to have it here. There's a slight argument to be made for the whole Wiki is not paper thing, but the bottom line is that there has to be some reason to have something, and there just isn't any that I can see for this one. DreamGuy 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With the claimed 54,000 sq meters (580,000 sq feet) of retail space it satisfies the 37,000 sq meter area to qualify as a "Regional" shopping center. The rejected guideline WP:MALL called for an assumption of notability for "Superregional malls" of over 74,000 sq meters (800,000 sq ft) of gross leasable area. A tally of AFD results shows that Superregional malls have generally been kept in AFDs but regional malls have a mixed record. A regional mall is still more notable than mere local strip malls or power centers, especially in a less populated area. Adding some sources satisfying WP:A would help show it satisfies WP:N Edison 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It looks like it is one of the largest shopping centres in that country and definitely looks notable, although it needs to be expanded significantly and sourced. 170 stores with several major tenants easily passes notability.--JForget 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' while it's nowhere near as big as Westfield Parramatta, within the Western Australian retail environment it's quite significant and notable. I will definately assume good faith of established contributors like Orderinchaos and Thewinchester and that there are sources available which simply need to be reviewed and incorporated. Ga rr ie 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) *Delete unless something notable is found and sourced. Square feet are not notable, and proposals to judge shopping centers by that criterion alone have been rejected. If it is notable in Perth, thee will be sources saying so. DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the major shopping centers in Perth are few and far between due to the city planning; as a result these shopping centers are an integral part of Perth, serving as commerce and transportation hubs. Note that there are very few articles in Category:Shopping centres in Perth, Western Australia, so there is no need to cull articles without good reason. Regarding the transportation hub aspect, see Karrinyup bus station, Perth and Booragoon bus station, Perth; the bus routes go all around the city stopping at train interchanges and bus interchanges at these shopping centers. John Vandenberg 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your justification reads like a tourist advertisement to Perth. If those places were important to Perth, then you must add them to the Perth page. They do not deserve their own page, and, as you admitted, are not important on their own outside of Perth. NobutoraTakeda 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable shopping centre, as now demonstrated within the article, and which would have been illustrated if the nominator had bothered to do his research beforehand. I'm irritated that he chose instead to waste our time here. Rebecca 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the nominator's job to prove that an article subject is notable. It is up to the editors who contribute to an article to ensure it complies with WP:N and WP:V. No time was wasted here -- the AfD resulted in significant and necessary improvements to the article, improvements which had not happened in the previous 6 months of this article's history. I am becoming quite annoyed at the inappropriate and snarky comments directed towards the nominator. For reasons I have set out several times above, the AfD was an appropriate response to (what was) an incredibly poor article. There was nothing in the article previously to suggest that it was an "easily notable shopping centre". Now the article is so much better -- well done to everyone involved, especially those who diligently searched for information showing the notability of the centre and the sources! Skeezix1000 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well we were all back from holidays, were on uni breaks and happened to have the time to do all this research! Had we not been, this article would have been deleted and we'd have had to go to DRV to get it recreated, which is insane. The point, I think, is that it shows a LOT more respect for editors to raise this sort of stuff at project talk pages and then only go down this road if such action genuinely leads nowhere. I think deletion becomes a first port of call far too many times, and it only creates ill feeling amongst the community when it hasn't been preceded by any good faith attempt to notify the relevant people who may be able to improve it. Orderinchaos 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. And waiting 30sec after a prod tag is cleared from an article (and appropriate reasoning included in the edit summary) before the nominator moves the issue to AfD is not using good faith by anyone's stretch of the imagination. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you have to take a "trust, but verify" attitude to a certain extent with these things. I wasn't assuming that you were lying about it being notable when I put together the nom, but on the other hand, if we just blindly took people's word for it when they said that things were notable, then nothing would ever get deleted, not even the things that obviously deserve it. I'm glad that you were able to improve this page, but I'm not going to apologize for nominating a bad article for AFD. The best defense against deletion is a good offense: when you start a new article, make sure that you include some actual content and sources, and then it won't be an issue in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to any past contributors, the article was in very poor condition and did not demonstrate the notability of its subject. It was a good candidate for AfD. Yes, I know that some of think that the nominator ought to have notified everyone of his intentions first, but it is not incumbent on him to do so. And, IMO, it wasn't the type of borderline article that ought to have prompted such notification -- the article didn't even come close to meeting notability criteria. Frankly, it was reasonable of him to have assumed that if after 6 months, with not one editor having added any evidence of notability, the centre was not notable. Being rated by Wikiproject Shopping Centres is not a substitute for actual article content. And, no the article would not have had to go through DRV to be recreated. The constant suggestions on this page that the nomination was either in bad faith and/or innapropriate themselves violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. The AfD should have been a surprise to no one. I'm very glad that the article has been improved, but I am quite saddened at the unnecessary negative tone and the misplaced outrage that have been expressed on this page. Skeezix1000 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources establish that it was a notable part of retail planning for Perth and that makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In view of a good understanding of the history of the regional development of Perth, Western Australia - this article along with a few others - are essential and integral in the process where shopping centres in the metropolitan suburbs removed forever the centrality and primacy of the Perth CBD - remove it - and you might as well say you know nothing whatsoever about the context of the location, or the context or history of the locality - let alone the inter-relationship with the politics of development in Perth and the issues mentioned by Zivko85 above. Satu Suro 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? If that was true, why does that look like OR that belongs on a page created by the shopping center? Also, if it was important to the politics, then a page about the politics of Perth could have a mention of it and that would be all it really deserves on Wikipedia.NobutoraTakeda 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've made your point NobutoraTakeda, there's no need to keep repeating it. Can I strongly suggest you go back and look at the article and see what's been happening in the last 12hrs before you make any further comments. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what is in the article at this time, I would class this as within the bounds of WP:N Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well sourced Recurring dreams 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Superb work on the referencing and rewrite to those who worked on this, this is a real obvious keep. Sigh, what a shame we're back to the "mall wars" where peoples' "gut instincts" that shopping centres are inherently non-notable or subject to a non-existent policy are attempting to override Wikipedia's primary notability criterion. --Canley 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changed from delete. Article is now adequately sourced to demonstrate notability. Kudos to the folks who actually take time to improve an article instead of just saying it can be improved. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adequately sourced? You mean giving mention in a news paper? If thats your rational for "notable" then I can list probably 40 different shopping centers that haven't been mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Want to help me create pages for them? NobutoraTakeda 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, adequately sourced. As best I can tell (based on the titles of the cited articles), the mall is the primary focus of a few of them, and at the very least mentioned in multiple other sources. That satisfies notability criteria as far as I am concerned. And sure, if you've got multiple independent sources for potential articles that haven't been created yet - let's get cracking. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. I can pick another random location if you want to go at it again. :) I still don't believe that shopping centers or anything of the sort are inherently notable. NobutoraTakeda 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I, which is why my original recommendation was to delete. Only after the addition of satisfactory sourcing did I change my mind. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could someone with some common sense please close this. Per TWin. Twenty Years 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be pretty well sourced, but this shouldn't be speedied.--Sefringle^Talk 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources--if it's notable, it can be sourced. Better than going by rank in an area or square footage. But since it was challenged let it run the full time. No harm will be done.DGG (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems well sourced enough. Lankiveil 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As the article currently exists, adequate reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. However, the arrogance and rudeness of the article's primary author in responding to this AfD are rather disturbing, including the accusation that the nominator had created this AfD in violation of WP:POINT, particularly given the fact that the article was completely sourceless and consisted almost exclusively of a list of stores when the AfD was opened. I think a very important general rule was stated here by User:Thewinchester that "Literally, the project will for the next 24hrs have to kick this article in the pants because a user went WP:IDONTLIKEIT and didn't use clean-up tags. Additionally, how can you possibly pass judgement on something which you admit to not even seeing yet which you know is being worked on? So far, the most sensable comment I have seen here is from Skeezix1000 who defers his judgement pending the appropriate opportunity for clean-up." (see here). I hope that we can expect that in any and all future AfDs that all those involved with the creation of articles will be given the same courtesy that should have been received here well before an AfD was created. I don't think that nominating any article for deletion that could have been improved is a WP:POINT violation, as alleged here, but there is a basic and fundamental level of courtesy that should be applied in all cases when there is an opportunity to improve an article without the need to nominate it for deletion. Alansohn 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is important that where articles could be notable if more information was available that some time be given for the original authors/project teams to have the chance to bring it up to the appropriate level. After all opportunities have been exhausted, or in blatant cases, then bring it to AfD. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong keep, article has been majorly revamped and no longer resembles the original version. By now, this article is VERY much sufficient in detailing the mall's notability. Kudos to the hard-working Wikipedian(s) who re-wrote it ! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already try to close this under snowball and that was reverted? Just because there is more detail doesn't mean its more notable detail. Its a loose association of facts, nothing of real note. A history does not make something notable. Stores do not make something notable. The events there have no justification for that actually being notable. A collection of mediocre facts, no matter how large, does not equal one notable fact. NobutoraTakeda 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on this AfD is already against you on this. And stop trying to disparage editor credibility on whatever violations you think they may or may not have performed, this act is getting both old and tired. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and well sourced --Melburnian 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm at worst neutral on the article as it currently stands. I would have said something earlier, but I thought that it was closed. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:04, 18 July 2007 (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.