Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cornwall Centre (Regina, Saskatchewan)


 * [post of 03:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC) moved below to List of sources. Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)]

Discussion with closing admin
. Unscintillating (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. The AfD was closed as delete with no Keep !votes. If you have you have a problem with that decision and a valid reason to challenge it then you can request a deletion review, but please read this guideline first. As the closing admin, may not have seen this so I am pinging him.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Philg88, I read WP:DRVPURPOSE as you requested Had you read the link I provided, you'd have known that the closing admin has already mentioned DRV.  The post I made stands alone.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * However, as long as you've started a discussion, I'll set the stage for something else I'm working on. Here are two key comments from the discussion with the closing admin, "If the AfD got the wrong result, let's see some sources..." joe decker 21:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)  One of the last things he said in the discussion was, "More than happy to review more...[with] new data" joe decker 00:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC) .  Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

List of sources
Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  Paywall.
 * 2)  Paywall.
 * 3)  Photo.
 * 4)  Javascript required.  Search for "Cornwall Centre".
 * 1)  Paywall.
 * 2)  Photo.
 * 3)  Javascript required.  Search for "Cornwall Centre".
 * 1)  Photo.
 * 2)  Javascript required.  Search for "Cornwall Centre".
 * 1)  Photo.
 * 2)  Javascript required.  Search for "Cornwall Centre".
 * 1)  Javascript required.  Search for "Cornwall Centre".
 * 13.
 * 14.
 * 15.

Review of sources

 * 1, 2, and 3 should have been found as per Articles for deletion discussion guidelines D1. #1 is a 14-page book.  There has been speculation that #1 counts as a primary source.  #2 is short but should have been enough to raise questions about delete !votes based on notability grounds.  #3 is significant, but lacks the context of why Sask Tel is mentioned.  #4 and 5 are from a proquest database, so are behind a paywall.  Both address the topic directly and in detail and provide a significant amount of significant coverage.  These two sources alone probably satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG.  They were published in Montreal, which is 1500 mi from Regina.  #6 is from 2014 and describes the mall as "dominant" in the region.  #7 and #8 don't have a lot to say but they are books that cover all of Canada.  A Spring 2012 marketing campaign called "Break out your style" won an icsc.org marketing award and 3 international Marcom awards.[9][10][11] #12 is a partially digitized database from the City of Regina.  I believe that what is available are the captions of about 80 pictures.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * #13 and #14 are from opening day of the mall, written by the Regina Leader-Post. Both articles are strong indicators of wp:notability.  #15 is an article I found from an Ottawa archive while working on Cornwall Square.  It is not a lot and there are issues such as that it does not mention Cornwall Centre by name.  Also, the names "Chartwood Development Ltd" and "Charterwood Developments Ltd" are not an exact match.  But given the location and date of the newspaper, in sum I think it adds to WP:GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to overturn to keep
Is there any objection to reclosing as keep? Unscintillating (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's past midnight here, so I will look at this in the morning. Comments from other participants are of course welcome. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object. There was overwhelming consensus to delete, and there's nothing that you've presented above which changes anything.  If you still feel the close was incorrect, the proper action at this point would be to bring it to deletion review.  -- RoySmith (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "overwhelming consensus". Consensus is not defined by !vote counting, and none of the !votes provided examples or repeatable descriptions of searches that they had done.  The evidence such as it is, is personal opinion.  How do you define "overwhelming consensus"?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re:"the proper action at this point...deletion review" WP:Deletion review states,
 * Before listing a review request, please:
 * discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review.
 * Not only that, the closing admin has specifically agreed at 00:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC) to review "new data" as an alternative to taking this to DRV. So, no, your statement is incorrect as to what next is "the proper action".  DRV should "only" be used after discussion with the closing admin has not resulted in resolution.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that the sources above meet WP:GNG? If not, why not?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I too object - Although looking at the images it looks fairly big but I still believe it was a non notable centre, & I completely agree with RoySmith in that If you or anyone disagree with the outcome then this should be taken to DRV, Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Roy Smith has incorrectly stated that "the proper action" next is to take this to DRV. The procedure for DRV requires discussion with the closing admin before considering taking the matter to DRV, and in this case the closing admin has offered to review "new data" as an alternative to DRV.  Have you looked at the fifteen sources listed above?  Had you seen these fifteen sources before you posted at the AfD, would you have !voted delete?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: Every editor but one expressed a deletionist sentiment.  There was clear consensus to delete.  Even if there wasn't, this should be taken to DRV rather than informally discussed here.  p  b  p  14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) The AfD was closed hours after new evidence was provided that no editors had reported the sources to be found in the minimal search specified by WP:BEFORE D1, so the result is far from clear and IMO should have been relisted. (2) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy...do you have a definition of what constitutes "formal" and "informal" discussion?  As far as formality is concerned, the process here is that the closing administrator has agreed to review "new data", and I have posted fifteen sources above.  To be sure, I thought this matter would be promptly resolved by the posting here.  I could have posted all of this on the closing admin's talk page, but I think it is better organized here.  (4) Do you agree that the fifteen sources posted above satisfy WP:GNG for this topic?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggested taking it to DRV a week ago if the closure was a problem. My view hasn't changed. Philg88 ♦talk 15:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This matter is currently in the hands of the closing administrator. DRV is not a forum for bypassing discussion with the closing admin.  Since your initial comment here, I've posted 15 sources, formatted ready to be added to the article as general references.  Do you have an opinion about whether or not these sources meet WP:GNG?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. Take it to DRV. That's the appropriate venue. It looked like a clear case of delete to me. Still does. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The closing admin has specifically agreed at 00:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC) to review "new data" as an alternative to taking this to DRV. Do you have an opinion about whether the fifteen sources posted above satisfy WP:GNG?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I apologize for letting this linger, I'm heading off on a short anniversary jaunt. It certainly seems as if there's not much support for restoring this, but I should note that I have not seen the text of the two Proquest-paywalled articles, and if someone wants to email them my way, when I do get to giving my own view on this I that would be data to have in hand.
 * In the meantime, if someone wants a DRV on this, given my temporary low bandwidth here, I absolutely support heading there now. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When I posted this section, I didn't expect that there would be objections, but since there are, another possible result is a procedural close without prejudice to a new AfD. I think any new AfD is unlikely given the weight of the evidence provided, but at a minimum, any new AfD will not go six days without WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment An editor has asked me on my talk page where to find the AfD.  There is a link at the top of the page marked "Project Page".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Without sharing my view as to how I would have voted, a delete opinion based on some interpretations of GNG (and more particularly CORP and CORPDEPTH is still compatible with the above sources to the best of my ability to see them. As a result, the next step should be DRV.  Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there are 4 accepted routes: (1) if the admin is willing to reinsert it, he can do so, without having to ask anywhere; if anyone disagrees, it is up to them to file another afd. (2), unless it has been salted (protected from re-creation), anyone at all can write a better article in mainspace, making it immediately clear form the contents that it is a better article.Someone will probably tag it as G4, but a deleting admin should check it and not delete it if they think it is sufficiently improved. Again, the recourse is to afd. (3) Anyone at all can write a proposed better article in Draft space (formerly AfC),  Whoever reviews it can if they think proper accept it and move it to mainspace. (3)Deletion Review. If it's really controversial it will probably end up there anyway, and we're not a bureaucracy.  DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The community decision was to delete. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)