Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohl's Plaza (Colonie, New York)


 * 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. Subject is notable and verifiable. My apologies, again. The Earwig (User 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kohl's Plaza (Colonie, New York)
The article does not mention how the subject notable, but I'm not fully sure because it has a good deal of sources, especially from business journals, et cetera. It might be possible that if some notability is found from these sources, and is explained in the article, it could be kept. Opinions? The Earwig (User 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, I disagree. This area is mentioned many times in local news and business journals which serve as the major newspapers for this area.  I spent quite a bit of my time developing this article.  I did not simply make it up off the top of my head.  To be honest, if well-researched articles are going to become candidates for deletion, then I guess I will cease spending my time making any further additions to Wikipedia.  But I could point out that there are a multitude of articles with no sources whatsoever all over Wikipedia. Yx7791 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional points. The shopping center is on a major business road in this area.  Like any other shopping center, it is of interest to those interested in retail history.  It has been mentioned in fifteen different newspaper articles.  There were a number of articles talking about trying to fill the vacant space when one big box retailer closed.  There are more articles about it than have been sourced.  But, the bottom line is this....it is a well-researched article which took time to write.  When I go around Wikipedia seeing so many articles with no source or few sources, it makes me wonder about enforcement.  My articles typically have double-digit numbers of sources.  But if after taking this amount of time and identifying more than ten sources (which is ten more than the number of sources in quite a few articles here), my work is going to be deleted, then as I said before, I don't need to waste my time making contributions on this site. Yx7791 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there was a slight error in communication here, my apologies for not making it clear. There is no doubt in my mind that the article is verifiable&mdash; that is, no doubt that such a place actually exists. What I was referring to is that the article doesn't mention how the article is notable&mdash; that is, why the subject is important. If you look back at my nominating statment, I said that that I wasn't sure if the article was notable, not that I didn't believe that it was true. Essentially, it needs to be said somewhere in the article's subject that it is signifigant. I'm not saying that the subject's not signifigant, I'm just saying that it needs to be proved more carefully. Anyway, I'm closing this AfD, you're right. The Earwig (User 04:33, 25 April 2009 (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.