Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lot 10


 * 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. The dialogue between Joe Chill and Uncle G has been disregarded as irrelevant to this AfD discussion. It appears that there is a consensus that the subject is notable, and the article can be cleaned up. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lot 10

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

Notability not established for this shopping area (as opposed to a geographic region or place). Wikipedia is not a directory of every high street or shopping mall. In accordance with WP:BEFORE, this article has been marked as an advert for over 2 years with no sign of the problem being addressed. Ash (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not about doing nothing except waiting on the sidelines for two years. Nor is it about no-effort one-word deletion rationales.  It is about searching for sources onesself, before nominating articles for deletion.  No editor here has indicated that xe has done that at all.  This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for the long-standing procedures in this regard.  Moreover, AFD only works if editors put in the effort to put deletion policy into action, which means checking that sources exist.  See Guide to deletion for more on that.  Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and no-effort AFD discussions often come to the wrong conclusions.  Here's a hint: Putting the effort in turns up plenty of sources that discuss this subject in the context of the umbrella subject Bukit Bintang, from the Malaysia Star and the New Straits Times to tourist guides such as this Asia One article.  Writing the encyclopaedia involves finding such sources, and writing content such as the fact that Lot 10 was built on the site of an old wet market. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when did WP:BEFORE relate to the !voters? My reason for deletion is that the article is two year old spam and should have been speedy deleted long ago. I'm sure as hell not going to rewrite the article (Why don't you since you're so concerned? Don't stand on the sidelines.). Joe Chill (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's everyone's resposibility, nominator and other discussion participants. If you are here to simply vote then you are providing no useful input to AFD.  AFD is not about votes. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, so rewrite the dang article instead of harassing users. Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And why do you only comment in AFD? Why not make your comment above a keep? Like you said, Don't stand on the sidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat: AFD is not about votes. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat, you do nothing in AFD besides harass users. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Uncle G, as you are evidently spamming these AFD's in what may also be a form of harassment, please do not expect me to enter into any further dialogue with you on any AFD in the future. You are welcome to apply one of the real procedures of WP:DR if you feel I am doing something really bad here.—Ash (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any spamming, if it exists, is yours. Your nominations are identical, all with a rationale that nothing had been done (even by you) for two years.  My responses, you'll note, were not.  See the hint above which addresses this article, for example.  You made a load of identical bad nominations.  You should not be surprised to find those nominations challenged for lacking any foundation in policy, in the same discussions where you make them.  If you don't want bad nominations pointed out, don't make them.  Put deletion policy into actual practice.  See the pages that I've pointed you to already, above.  Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He already said No so why don't you shut-up about those links? He also doesn't care about what you say anyways. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia does not have a deadline and so the nomination's point is both empty and inaccurate.  I found no difficulty in adding a citation for this place which is evidently quite notable.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lot of info (and great visual imagery) in the Colonel's reference, and I imagine there are others, especially if one is prepared to run links thru a translator. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Place pops up in travel guides. See here. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 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.