Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
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. A redirect may be created separately.  Sandstein  20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parabanks Shopping Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Parabanks Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to explain why this shopping centre is notable due to the fact that it isn't at all notable. As per previous AFD (No Consensus 2K/3D) the article fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:ROTM. All third-party published media about this shopping centre fails to establish notability as per the guidelines; Localised third-party sources merely discussing routine additions of new tenants, run-of-the-mill renovations etc that all shopping centres experience do not establish notability within the realm of shopping centres, nor is it a significant landmark within the region. Article has been notability tagged since December 2016, without improvement.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Speedy Close/Keep - The last AfD which went over 22 days closed by ATrain as "No Consensus" only a day ago. [1]. Absurdly too early for another one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion regarding Procedural Closure
    • Comment: - A finding of 'No Consensus' does not preclude opportunity for renomination by previously uninvolved parties - Hence there is no grounds for a proceedural closure despite Oakshade's benighted WP:WIKILAWYER attempt. Protection from immediate renomination is only granted to articles whose AFDs had resulted in 'Keep', as per WP:DPAFD. Further, I would propose that Oakshade’s view that the article be kept goes solely to the existence of the recent nomination, and does not in any form serve to invalidate the assessment that the article is of a non-notable shopping centre... Unless he finds something that establishes notability, then I fear the article concerned is not long for this world... Keep votes that fail to address the reasonable grounds for deletion are usually ignored, as is as they should be.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: ***Honestly, that is some major WP:WIKILAWYER language you just used while I didn't use any LAWYER language. But since you'd like to be all LAWYER about this, the just-finished AfD was not closed WP:NPASR and per NPASR, speedy-renomination is not appropriate. Also per WP:DPAFD, "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." By the guideline you linked, this is a disruptive nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wonderful omission bias, do you write articles like this? The reason I ask is due to the fact that the sentence directly proceeding the text you paraphrased reads "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page." - Hence, the context of the guidance about disruptive renomination is specifically regarding a scenario where the community has expressed a clear view to keep an article, but the participant renominates the article for deletion anyway, which I agree would be disruptive. But as you know, there was no consensus made in the previous nomination for any outcome, and the article concerned has been notability tagged for an extended period of time thus giving users ample time to correct the issues, and hence a previously uninvolved editor (like myself) seeking to come to a definitive conclusion is not a disruptive act - To accuse me of such is an act of WP:BADFAITH. In regards to WP:NPASR, the guideline you linked specifically indicates that a finding of no consensus does not "prejudice against speedy renomination". I give your WP:LAWYER skills a 3/10 for effort, but don't race to quit your day job!   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have just re-read OakShade's attempt to lawyer, it just occurred to me that they totally misinterpreted the meaning of "with no prejudice against speedy renomination"... For his benefit, it means that any party is welcome to speedily renominate the article.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's the point, not to mention a true omission bias. The AfD closed only a day before this inappropriate re-nomination was NOT closed as no consensus "with no prejudice against speedy renomination", just as "no consensus." That's a huge difference. Even by the quote from WP:NPASR you used, speedy re-nomination is inappropriate. 1/10 in WP:LAWYER skills my friend. --Oakshade (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where exactly was the option for "no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination" exactly? Oh wait, there isn't one! That's because findings of no consensus are inherently without prejudice in the given context. The mere fact that this AFD is being allowed to run and others are participating is evidence of this. You've also failed to address the simple notion that attempting to come to a clear consensus as a previously uninvolved party is not a disruptive act.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • If the closing admin ATrain closed it as "no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination" instead of just "no consensus", they would've explicitly said so and cited WP:NPASR as all closing admins with that specific close do. [2][3][4] are examples. The closing admin here didn't do so. Even by WP:LAWYERing standards, this was a disrupted nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think the word you mean is disruptive... Though I agree that this nomination has been disrupted by a benighted Wikilaywer too. But that aside, I can't help but think we're going around in circles here and that attempting to achieve a consensus on an issue is not an act of disruption nor could it ever be. All material you've referenced claiming that renominations are disruptive only applies in the circumstance of a 'Keep'result being ignored, and no such result exists. Secondly, to humour your parrot lawyering, A Train might not have expressly used the "without prejudice" template, but they certainly didn't use the "with prejudice" template either! Finally, I'd like to give you the opportunity to contest the reason for deletion directly. Is this shopping centre notable? Why is it notable exactly? Can you provide a reference that establishes notability? Your entire involvement here has failed to address the elephant in the room - The subject of the article isn't at all notable, and I suspect you've resorted to procedural motions as a last ditch attempt to ignore the obvious truth.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete run of the mill shopping mall. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the usual minimum size for a shoppingmall to be considered notable is 100,000 sq. meters (approximately one million sq ft) This i only 1/4 of that, and there is no special reason for makign an exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Promethean: There's no specific rule against renominating an article two days after a no consensus debate, but you can imagine that AfD would be chaos if it became common practice. The typical process is to give it a couple of months. A Traintalk 07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @A Train: I understand and respect that this cannot be common practice, but I genuinely believe the original AFD was valid for this particular article, hence the exceptional renomination. So far the consensus validates my renomination.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per vote in previous AfD discussion. And yes, that one was closed prematurely. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually believe that it was closed prematurely then you should take it to WP:DRV. I am not sure how why you think it was closed prematurely when the discussion had been open for almost a calendar month and had been relisted twice; debates are not to be relisted three times except in extraordinary circumstances. A Traintalk 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete run of the mill shopping centre. the main coverage centres around renovations. almost every Australian shopping centre has received a renovation in the past 20 years. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the others, run of the mill shopping mall.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - All but one of the above !voters who voted to "Delete" in the recently closed AfD were subject to WP:CANVASS by the nom.[5][6][7][8] None of those who !voted to "Keep" were notified. Note that my !vote here was strictly procedural. No prejudice on the merits of this article, but the nom's CANVASS behavior needs to be noted. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullshit - All participants of the previous AFD were informed, including Paul foord and Jabberjawjapan who were the sole Keep !voters. Informing all previous participants in a neutral and transparent manner is not an act of WP:CANVASS, but rather an attempt to keep the participation of all editors who were previously involved, including those who I personally disagree with. Unfortunately this type of false and dishonest representation is stereotypical of Oakshade.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what? I'll happily stand corrected and am glad the user didn't CANVAS. Unlike the above user, there is never foul language and false claims (graciously corrected if needed) to other users, not to mention WP:STALK as this user has been doing to me in the last couple of days, a fact I'm happy to provide diffs for. I hope going forward Promethean will learn from this example and participate cordially with all users, even those he disagrees with.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have just had the misfortune to read the "discussions" here. In brief, may I suggest a thorough reread of Wikipedia:Civility. JabberJawJAPAN talk 06:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Salisbury, South Australia#Retail where it is mentioned. It doesn't look notable, but alternatives to deletion are available for non-notable topics. I'd like some of the above "delete" !voters to explain why they don't want a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 18 October 2017 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parabanks_Shopping_Centre_(2nd_nomination)

Leave a Reply