Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington Mall (Canada)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Burlington Mall (Canada)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Originally tagged with prod as "nn mall; fails WP:CORP; wikipedia is not a directory". Prod tag removed without explanation or addition of encyclopedic content. Those same reasons for deletion still apply. Agent 86 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) How can somebody make a good ARTICLE without it being DELETED, by you guys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.146.24 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 19 January 2007  (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. -- MarcoTolo 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, no indication that this passes WP:CORP. So tagged. Seraphimblade 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. I don't have an opinion either way on the merit of the article, but if there's already an AfD up, just let it run its course — speedy deletions are best when there's no debate whatsoever on whether an article belongs, and somebody must've thought enough of it to remove the prod. If it's deletion material, it'll get there just as well through AfD.  Tijuana Brass  00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least as notable as Mahon Point and several other such centres. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is fairly notable. It's Wikipedia's job to have articles for people to find out information on things. FellowWikip e dian 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this mall notable, other than your assurance it is? How does the article comply with the content policies and guidelines and meet "Wikipedia's job"? How does the existence of another article on a non-encyclopedic topic show that this article is or is not encyclopedic? Agent 86 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's your typical mall, nothing special or noteworthy enough to deserve mention in an encyclopedia of this scale. I also agree with the nomination.   James   Duggan  07:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. How are large, two-story malls not notable?  How are they any less notable than train stations or our 1,000,000th article?  RFerreira 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's put your rhetorical questions the correct-way around: how is this two-story mall notable? How is it as notable, or moreso, than other articles? How does comparing this article to others prove anything? Agent 86 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a rhetorical question, but thanks for dodging it anyhow. RFerreira 10:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable to the local community as an important social arena. bbx 10:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if Zanta can stay ... this mall can, its got about equal importance to canada.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 10:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Invalid reason to keep, WP:INN. Seraphimblade 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wrong, WP:INN has no foundation in policy, nor is it even a guideline. Its just an essay written by an extremely small handful of people.  Bobix makes a reasonable argument to keep, which is backed up by a LexisNexis search which shows 76 articles written about this mall in the last two years alone.  RFerreira 10:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First, I was responding to Alkivar, so Bobix has little to do with it. As to sources-great, if there are some nontrivial mentions, add away, and I'll happily consider changing my position! However, in my experience, most of the time these "tons of sources" regarding malls are reprinted press releases, construction timetables, or reports about events which happened or are slated to happen at the mall-trivial mentions. As to WP:INN, it most certainly has a foundation in the notability guidelines. Why? Because WP:N says one and only one thing satisfies notability-and "something else like it is here" is not that thing. It would be entirely possible for one large mall to meet the notability standards and another to fail to do so, even if they're generally relatively similar. Of course, if someone has found multiple non-trivial reliable source mentions, they should be added to the article at once, so we can settle this whole thing! Seraphimblade 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several things. First, WP:N is a guideline, not a policy.  Second, there are multiple "non-trivial" articles about this mall; feel free to verify this for yourself on LexisNexis if you would like.  Then again, non-trivial is a subjective term, but I hold the position that a good portion of these are indeed notable and non-passing mentions of the mall.  Third, Alkivar's point is valid; if we are to cover a minor Canadian street performer, I would expect an equal amount of interest in a neighboring mall &mdash; this interest is confirmed by the 76 odd articles about the mall.  Feel free to disagree.  RFerreira 11:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In practice, WP:N is very widely followed, even to the point of being an integral part of the speedy deletion policy, so the "it's just a guideline" bit holds little water. I see four articles cited within the article, not seventy-six. One of those is about UPS, one of those is about produce, and two of them are about controversy over older drivers. I presume they mention the mall somehow, but from their titles, they certainly are not about the mall. I don't currently have Lexis-Nexis access, but I'm able to find plenty of stories just on Google News. Unfortunately, they're the exact types of stories I discussed previously-they're not about the mall. They're about events in or near the mall, and just mention it in passing as the place where something happened or will happen. Trivial mentions, certainly nothing a comprehensive article could be written from. Seraphimblade 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you have never even read the source articles in question, the closing administrator may safely disregard your illinformed commentary. The third-party sources which have been cited thus far are perfectly relevant.  The first compares the differences in size between the UPS headquarters and the Burlington Mall, and serves as a reference for the square footage of the mall; make a note of the context in which the cite is used.  The second is a reference about the Burlington Mall Farmers' Market, and the last two are about a death that occured at the mall.  More will be added as time permits, as there are plenty to choose from.  RFerreira 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not read them, granted, but they're exactly what I figured they'd be. One is a single fact about that mall (and that one could easily enough be verified through primary sources). That's hardly enough to write a paragraph, let alone an article, and is a trivial "mention in passing". The second is about a store at the mall, not about the mall itself-the mall is simply "where it is", a mention in passing. Finally, the third is about an event at the mall-the article is primarily about the death, the mall is just where it "happened to happen". Again, a trivial mention. What kind of article is possible from these sources? "Burlington Mall is X square feet large, it has a farmer's market, and someone died there once?" Seraphimblade 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I find it notable that this mall was once the largest business center in the metro area, according to one of these so-called "trivial" sources you've never laid eyes on. ;-) RFerreira 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The polar opposite of speedy deletion material.  Not only is this a decent article as-is, the Burlington Mall was the largest business site within the entire Halton Region throughout the 1960s up until the mid 1990s.  Silensor 12:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prominent and verifiable. - SimonP 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RFerreira, notable to the community it serves, verifiable through multiple third party sources. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor, etc. --Myles Long 05:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.