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 no consensus. W.marsh 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forte Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another barrel-scraping shopping mall advertisement Pathless 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object; it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs)

• Keep - notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Notable. The complex have come out as the best in the country in terms of rent versus footfall. --Letterkennyboi 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you source that Jbeach56 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thought that this was a borderline speedy. I will offer further arguments. Fails WP:CORP, and does not make use of reliable secondary sources. Pathless 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doesn't fail WP:CORP; it is a shopping centre, not a single company. There are 12 separate companies listed as trading there. Regarding reliable secondary sources - are you questioning its existence?(Sarah777 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The fact that no sources can be found says plenty about the (lack of) notability of the centre. Its single claim to notability is the unsupported "rent versus footfall" claim, a claim, which interestingly is shared with a related shopping mall article. A shopping centre is a company, the business of which is to lease premises to its tenants. Pathless 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; they can be built and sold in whole or part. I have no idea what the arrangements are the the Letterkenny cases. (Sarah777 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - Agree with User Talk:Exit2DOS2000 notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. The community of Letterkenny and maybe even the large area of County Donegal --Balloholic 18:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note that an element of "ballot-stuffing" could be present here. Several of these accounts are "single purpose" accounts, contributing almost solely to Letterkenny related articles. Pathless 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I'm not including in the alleged stuffing? Also clearly doesn't apply to User:Exit2DOS2000 and hard to see how it could apply to Balloholic either. (Can't see Letterkennyboi's record). I think you should specify who you suspect or withdraw the charge which reads as if it applies to all the rest of us. (Sarah777 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, I wasn't talking about you, or about User:Exit2DOS2000. You should try to relax, it is obvious that your account is not single pupose. I left a message on your talk page. It is easy to see how it could apply to Balloholic, if you just take a look through his edits. In fact, he seems to share editing habits with several other users. You can see Letterkennyboi's edits here. Pathless 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources, and 12 stores doesn't indicate a mall Jbeach56 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP plain and simple. Also fails WP:N. Vegaswikian 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RS have now been added Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." You really think this description of a reliable publication applies to www.shopping-centre.co.uk? The other source is a local newspaper. Pathless 09:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Donegal Democrat qualifies as well as any other newspaper. You have now added questioning editors to questioning a well respected and long established newspaper! And speaking of ballot-stuffing User:Vegaswikian appears to have a track record of antipathy to Shopping Mall articles.(Sarah777 10:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But I never questioned its reliability as a source. With all due respect, your tone is somewhat shrill at times, and you seem always ready to jump to conclusions. My point is, coverage in this local newspaper does not imply notability. Most people and local businesses have appeared in their own local newspaper at some point. Pathless 11:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, I advise you to be mindful of WP:NPA. It was YOU who mentioned the Democrat in the context of a sentence discussing reliability, not notability. So one source that might indicate notability isn't reliable and another source which is reliable can't confer notability? Several editors are suspect and now I'm "shrill". Seems you are going to diss any editor or evidence presented. (Sarah777 11:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, if you reread what was written, you'll notice that I mention it in a different sentence. But I am not going to discuss this with you any further. You seem to have a problem maintaining a cool head. Pathless 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an example of my "loss of cool"? That's a second breach of WP:NPA btw - if we must talk of cool heads. (Sarah777 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - I seriosly can't see how this, over any other, article on a shopping mall is not notable. Look at other articles on Irish shopping malls. What is your opinion on them Pathless?. --Balloholic 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you mean, though? I think that they could normally be merged into the article on the area, like the one on Blanchardstown Shopping Centre has been, unless they are especially notable in some way. Pathless 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through category of shopping centres in Dublin --Balloholic 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are all pretty awful articles. Some just give a list of the stores. I think that in these cases, since there is so little material on each individual centre, it would be better if they were all grouped together in something like a Shopping Centres in Dublin article. So yeah, I think that the individual articles should go. What is your opinion? Pathless 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What about the other articles on shopping malls in ireland (e.g. The Crescent in Limerick). What about creating an article on shopping in Letterkenny. I agree with an article on Shopping Centres in Dublin . Ones could also be made for other areas. (Limerick, Cork etc.). --Balloholic 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Pathless 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about it. --Balloholic 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Shopping in Letterkenny" article would need to be set up, then it would be requested that the material from each shopping centre would be merged into it. If that could work, I'll withdraw my nomination from these articles. Pathless 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Will I just start off with a few lines and wait for merge? How long will merge take? --Balloholic 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an appropriate name for the article. Shopping or Retail or something else? --Balloholic 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge needs to be requested and could be disputed. Merge with Shopping in Letterkenny. Pathless 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But should I start off Shopping in Letterkenny article first. --Balloholic 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please start it. Pathless 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Can you start the merges request now? --Balloholic 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now? Do I agree with merge on discussion page on Shopping in letterkenny? --Balloholic 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that the articles need to be taken off afd first, then it needs to be seen if anybody objects. I've proposed them for merging, and flagged this discussion up in the talk page. You can second the proposed merge on the Shopping in Letterkenny talk page if you like! Pathless 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? How long will it take? --Balloholic 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can second the proposal here. I can't remove the articles from afd, only an administrator can do that. Assuming there is consensus that the articles should be kept, it should take a couple of days. Pathless 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but At first glance I agree with the nom and really think that these shopping centres should all be referred to in a longer, better, Letterkenny article, but a single article Shopping in Letterkenny might just work and if it remains a shabby article can always be nomed for merge to Letterkenny later. Right now there seems to be too many tiny and/or non-notable stubs being written instead of making good comprehensive articles. Stubs are easy to create but articles are not and a stub is an easy way to not really bother doing much work or research on a topic, This seems to be the case these days with many Irish topics. ww2censor 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.