Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Rosa Plaza

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. Simply not notable enough. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Rosa Plaza

Santa Rosa Plaza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Regional mall, no apparent notability presented in the article or cited. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No claim of notability (speedable per (CSD/A7). Apparent media coverage regarding notability: "Dog bites man": [1].
  Wikipedia is not a mall directory.--victor falk 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You seemed to have missed all the stories that are directly about the mall that are not of the "dog bites man" variety incidents that took place there. --Oakshade 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Like Santa Roza Plaza to Offer Microsoft Internet? It's about Santa Roza Plaza, without the shadow of a doubt. But it's still about a dog biting a man.--victor falk 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It's in depth non-trivial coverage by a secondary reliable source about the mall which easily passes WP:NOTABILITY. By the way, no such WP:MANBITESDOG guideline exists and likely can't as there's too much subjectivity. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no WP:MANBITESDOG, but there is a policy about common sense.

• Keep - Being a "regional" mall is actually a strong reason to keep it as they are major malls that serve an entire region, not just a small neighborhood. The Press Democrat has written many in depth stories on this mall [2] [3] [4] (and many more [5]) --Oakshade 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• See my comment above. Your third link is about crime that takes place at the mall, not about it. And you could have saved yourself the trouble of linking to the same Hated Google Test as I did.--victor falk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I read your comment above and you're either ignoring the non-trivial coverage this topic has received or simply trying to get mall articles deleted (I see you're giving the same cut-and-paste argument on other mall articles AfDs). You seem to have no understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and simply don't like malls. If you want to change WP:NOTABILITY, you have to make your argument there, not on a specific article's AfD. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't especially like or dislike malls, but I love wikipedia articles about malls. For instance, I love Country Club Plaza. That's a good article. It tells me more about it than what's its anchors are and wether or not Microsoft offers wifi there. It tells me trivia like it was it was dubbed "Nichol's Folly" because the land bought for it was used for pig farming. It tells me quadrivia like as the first mall designed for automobile shoppers, so it had a major impact on American consumer habits. It is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, I can't see no shadow of that in Santa Rosa Plaza. If anybody truly believes there is the tiniest spark, {{sofixit}}. Don't bother about sources, just write; I will change my vote to keep without a single one, as long as it plausible enough not be a hoax.--victor falk 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• You simply don't like the non-trivial secondary sources about this topic and the fact they establish notability. You're citing only one article that remotely supports your non-existent guideline argument and ignoring the others which are much more deeper in scope about this mall than the Microsoft story anyway. And the argument to delete this article just because it's not as good as another is also non-sensical (I guess that's the fictional WP:NOTASGOODAS guideline). Wikipedia is a never-ending project and it takes time, sometimes a lot of it, for articles on notable topics to improve. --Oakshade 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Neutral Perhaps its size is sufficient for it being notable. In this case, the article has to be expanded with those claims, and non-subscription sources added.--victor falk 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Oakshade.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per abundance or RSs. Too bad they're mostly subscription. - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing notable enough to keep this. Ridernyc 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply put, the article fails to demonstrate notability. Also its size is small then the 800,000 sq ft that is generally accepted as granting notability for size. Vegaswikian 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, there are more malls this size near where I live than I have fingers and toes. This mall is no more notable than them. Axem Titanium 19:57, 3 November 2007 (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.