Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep per consensus and withdrawal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants
Abandoned essay. Linked from <10 mall discussion pages and a couple AFDs, and that's about it. A large number of incoming links are actually false positives by way of WP:ANC, which was a former redirect to WP:NOCLUE.

The essay has been completely untouched since 2008, and it hasn't been cited at all since that time either — any discussion that cites it is from 2008 or earlier. WP:MALLS and its talk page already have sufficient discussion regarding mall anchor stores and tenant listings. Since no one's using this essay anymore, and there's no information not already stated elsewhere, there's no reason to keep it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no reason not to retain this essay, which adequately sums up the discussions that we have had regarding anchor stores and tenant lists.  It doesn't advocate anything that runs contrary to policy, and its lack of being cited in discussions is really no big deal, since essays don't carry the weight of policy or guidelines.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick check of the "what links here" list shows it was referred to three times in 2009, most recently in November 2009, so perhaps we should get the facts straightened out as that's the main point in favour of the nomination. Admittedly that isn't that recent, but you have no idea to what extent it has referred to in edit summaries - I've do so a few times.  According to Wikipedia Traffic Stats, the essay averages about a dozen visits a month (I only went back the past 8 months or so) - again, not a lot, but for a pretty discrete topic, that's not bad.  If it occasionally offers some guidance to a small number of people, then it's hardly "abandoned".  But regardless, what is the guideline when something becomes "abdandoned"?  Do we start deleting material not on substantive grounds but because someone has set an arbitrary best before date?  Where's the policy direction/guideline that says we should start deleting materials, not due to content, but due to usage?  Finally, the nomination doesn't make a lot of sense when it suggests that we can rely on discussions on the talk page of the Wikiproject -- why should we need to rely on the discussions that lead to the drafting of this essay, but then delete the final product that encapsulates the consensus that was reached?  That make doesn't make a whit of sense to me. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also point out a couple of other errors in the nomination. It's not really correct to say that WP:ANC was "a former redirect to WP:NOCLUE" -  Shumin created the WP:ANC shortcut in 2007 to redirect here.  The shortcut pointed to NOCLUE for only three weeks (two years ago) of the past 3.5 years before it was redirected here.  And of the 22 incoming links that point to WP:ANC, my quick review shows only one intended for NOCLUE, with two other errors (someone meant WP:AGF rather than WP:ANC, and someone else was actually trying to point to WP:PW!) - hardly the "large number of incoming links are actually false positives".  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per SchuminWeb. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.