Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quentin Collection (3rd nomination)

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 with leave to speedy renominate. Hammer, if you want to knock this around some more let me know and I'll be happy to reopen it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quentin Collection

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last two AFDs argued that sourcing was sufficient, but further inspection shows the sources to be incidental, trivial coverage or press releases, which do not meet the criteria for third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shopping centre of no particular significance. However, there's an alternative to deletion which we should consider: we could trim, merge and redirect this (and, I suggest, every other article from {{chicagomalls}} as well) into a new list called list of shopping malls in Chicago, after which the only thing we need to delete is the template. The main benefit of this is that it saves us a lot of AfDs and there are no more quibbles about notability, because individual items on a list need not be notable.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say every one by a long shot; maybe just the tinier ones like this. Even the tiny Schaumburg Place has enough sources for its own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes. I see that. Which of the others do you think need co-nominating?—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better to nominate one by one. I've found sources for pretty much everything that's on that template, including at least a couple of the redlinked ones. Most of what's been nominated today is just very, very small strip malls — which are far less likely to be notable than even a smaller enclosed mall. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2011 (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.