Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SM Supermalls in the USA


 * 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   speedy delete. Per G3. Vandalized copy of SM Supermalls.  So Why  20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of SM Supermalls in the USA

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy removed by administrator, pure hoax. ApprenticeFan talk  contribs 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as obvious parody hoax and block from re-creation. If an administrator looks at the page and then at the SM Malls page and acutally reads the page they will see that it is a juvenile prank, taking a list of malls in the Philippines and changing the names to make it appear as if they are in the U.S.  Also another sysop needs to discuss with the sysop who was involved, perhaps they are using a script or something, this is pretty bad. Drawn Some (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant hoax. SM is a mall chain based in the Philippines and having been to at least two of them myself, I can tell you the concept would not work in the USA, especially in some of the cities given. Tagging as hoax. KuyaBriBri Talk 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that the original CSD tag was G8 - a talk page which is dependent on a page that does not exist. Given that, I can now see why removed the speedy tag. I have re-tagged it as G3 - pure vandalism, which is the category blatant hoaxes fall under. KuyaBriBri Talk 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, the whole situation baffles me, it is obviously a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not that obvious for someone who is not living in either the Philippines or the USA and thus not familiar with the concept of a mall as such and this company in particular. It could have been a valid try of an article. Point is, I have not reviewed it in detail because it was posted in the wrong namespace and I just moved it to the article space. It was not until now that I realized, thanks to a comment here, that it's a vandalized copy of another article's content. Regards  So Why  20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete blatant hoax. This is someone trying to be funny, and failing terribly. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 16:24, 30 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.