Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tartu Department Store


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Tartu Department Store

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

GNG fail, one source and it's primary.  dibbydib  boop or snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  dibbydib  boop or snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  dibbydib  boop or snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * it is OK, if most of shopping malls in here List of shopping malls in Estonia are redirects (and not individual articles) to this list.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it passes GNG easily. Pick your sources here https://tartu.postimees.ee/search?query=Tartu+kaubamaja from Postimees --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. There are many articles on Wikipedia devoted to shopping malls. I fail to see why Tartu kaubamaja should be deleted. One merely has to Google it for sources. A Google search pulls up 5,650,000 results to pick references from. ExRat (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 06:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The building has been an object of extensive public discussion due to its architectural peculiarities, and has often been used to raise or illustrate issues in city planning and modern architecture in general. The actual building, redesign, and expansion processes have also attained some notoriety. Additionally, there have been several sources discussion the business inside the building. Sadly, all that content is not visible in the current article, but then again I would have thought people making the deletion proposals might have been aware of the WP:NEXIST which states: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". --Ehitaja (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2020 (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.