Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poplar Creek Crossing (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Per WP:V: The article still has zero sources, and the last "keep" opinion only makes arguments for deletion.  Sandstein  06:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Poplar Creek Crossing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Spammy article on a strip mall. Last AFD showed "sources" that were only trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Popularity with the local populace aside, it fails notability. Jørdan 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently just a directory of current shops at the mall. Mattg82 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment.Relisting because nobody is discussion sourcing (or lack of such) and to be sure that consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The first two sources from the previous AfD clearly talk about Poplar Creek Crossing in more-than-trivial terms. The other two are harder to judge. It doesn't help that all four sources are behind paywalls, but that's no reason to consider the sources trivial. YardsGreen (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: it really needs work. In short intro paragraph, it manages to have mutliple WP issues, including WP:OR.
 * 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.