600:
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.
431:- 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
363:. 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.
229:. 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.
599:
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
402:
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
533:
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
898:, 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.
931:
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
728:
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.
186:
926:
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
300:
671:
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.
784:. 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
276:
85:
663:
971:
837:
355:- 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
698:
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
996:
502:
941:
921:
878:
623:
590:
557:
524:
470:
412:
331:
820:
752:
713:
771:
799:
682:
386:
252:
180:
139:
103:
95:
70:
146:
811:
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.
217:
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
80:
429:
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."
419:
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
260:
507:
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
64:
398:
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
284:
865:
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,
891:
112:
107:
116:
887:
201:
296:
272:
99:
168:
986:
are available for non-notable topics. I'd like some of the above "delete" !voters to explain why they don't want a redirect.
162:
894:
who were the sole Keep !voters. Informing all previous participants in a neutral and transparent manner is not an act of
699:
581:
are examples. The closing admin here didn't do so. Even by WP:LAWYERing standards, this was a disrupted nomination.--
475:
Have just re-read OakShade's attempt to lawyer, it just occurred to me that they totally misinterpreted the meaning of
292:
268:
121:
359:
attempt. Protection from immediate renomination is only granted to articles whose AFDs had resulted in 'Keep', as per
158:
69:
861:
994:
133:
208:
17:
978:
953:: I have just had the misfortune to read the "discussions" here. In brief, may I suggest a thorough reread of
863:
288:
264:
859:
857:
129:
659:
174:
1015:
40:
125:
966:
833:
320:
577:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1011:
1010:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
655:
479:... For his benefit, it means that any party is welcome to speedily renominate the article.
36:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
992:
918:
749:
620:
554:
499:
467:
395:
383:
356:
249:
439:, the guideline you linked specifically indicates that a finding of no consensus does not
8:
958:
829:
595:
I think the word you mean is disruptive... Though I agree that this nomination has been
954:
937:
874:
586:
520:
515:
you used, speedy re-nomination is inappropriate. 1/10 in WP:LAWYER skills my friend. --
432:
408:
327:
895:
852:
816:
579:
534:
come to a clear consensus as a previously uninvolved party is not a disruptive act.
785:
767:
444:
780:
If you actually believe that it was closed prematurely then you should take it to
762:
as per vote in previous AfD discussion. And yes, that one was closed prematurely.
194:
987:
928:
899:
730:
693:
601:
571:
535:
512:
480:
448:
436:
399:
364:
360:
230:
575:
226:
218:
55:
983:
933:
870:
781:
678:
582:
516:
511:, just as "no consensus." That's a huge difference. Even by the quote from
404:
323:
222:
812:
789:
723:
703:
570:
instead of just "no consensus", they would've explicitly said so and cited
563:
312:
763:
849:
the above !voters who voted to "Delete" in the recently closed AfD
673:
1004:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
886:- All participants of the previous AFD were informed, including
86:
Articles for deletion/Parabanks
Shopping Centre (2nd nomination)
447:
skills a 3/10 for effort, but don't race to quit your day job!
568:"no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination"
531:"no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination"
193:
982:
where it is mentioned. It doesn't look notable, but
574:as all closing admins with that specific close do.
261:
list of
Shopping malls-related deletion discussions
828:as per the others, run of the mill shopping mall.
311:- The last AfD which went over 22 days closed by
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1018:). No further edits should be made to this page.
867:but the nom's CANVASS behavior needs to be noted
509:"with no prejudice against speedy renomination"
477:"with no prejudice against speedy renomination"
81:Articles for deletion/Parabanks Shopping Centre
285:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
207:
283:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:Note: This debate has been included in the
322:. Absurdly too early for another one. --
52:. A redirect may be created separately.
441:"prejudice against speedy renomination"
421:"After a deletion debate concludes and
342:Discussion regarding Procedural Closure
14:
23:
24:
1030:
979:Salisbury, South Australia#Retail
529:Where exactly was the option for
394:***Honestly, that is some major
654:run of the mill shopping mall.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
13:
1:
700:to give it a couple of months
997:19:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
972:06:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
942:21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
922:21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
879:19:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
838:11:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
821:08:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
800:09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
772:08:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
753:09:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
714:07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
683:07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
664:09:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
624:21:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
591:18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
558:17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
525:15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
503:09:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
471:09:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
413:06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
387:05:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
332:03:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
309:Procedural Speedy Close/Keep
301:12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
277:12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
253:11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
65:20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
7:
786:extraordinary circumstances
10:
1035:
96:Parabanks Shopping Centre
71:Parabanks Shopping Centre
1007:Please do not modify it.
984:alternatives to deletion
289:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
265:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
32:Please do not modify it.
315:as "No Consensus" only
76:AfDs for this article:
562:If the closing admin
955:Knowledge:Civility
647:
646:
303:
279:
63:
1026:
1009:
915:
913:
911:
909:
851:were subject to
797:
793:
746:
744:
742:
740:
727:
711:
707:
697:
656:Ivar the Boneful
617:
615:
613:
611:
551:
549:
547:
545:
496:
494:
492:
490:
464:
462:
460:
458:
435:. In regards to
380:
378:
376:
374:
338:
337:
282:
258:
246:
244:
242:
240:
212:
211:
197:
149:
137:
119:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1016:deletion review
1005:
963:
907:
905:
903:
901:
795:
791:
738:
736:
734:
732:
721:
709:
705:
691:
648:
609:
607:
605:
603:
543:
541:
539:
537:
488:
486:
484:
482:
456:
454:
452:
450:
425:is in favor of
372:
370:
368:
366:
343:
238:
236:
234:
232:
154:
145:
110:
94:
91:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1032:
1021:
1020:
1000:
999:
974:
961:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
892:Jabberjawjapan
847:All but one of
843:Note to closer
840:
830:Deathlibrarian
823:
805:
804:
803:
802:
775:
774:
757:
756:
755:
685:
666:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
443:. I give your
389:
345:
344:
341:
336:
335:
334:
305:
304:
280:
215:
214:
151:
90:
89:
88:
83:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1031:
1019:
1017:
1013:
1008:
1002:
1001:
998:
995:
993:
991:
990:
985:
981:
980:
975:
973:
970:
969:
965:
964:
956:
952:
949:
943:
939:
935:
930:
925:
924:
923:
920:
917:
916:
897:
893:
889:
885:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
862:
860:
858:
855:
854:
848:
844:
841:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
822:
818:
814:
810:
807:
806:
801:
798:
794:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
773:
769:
765:
761:
758:
754:
751:
748:
747:
725:
720:
717:
716:
715:
712:
708:
701:
695:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
675:
670:
667:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
649:
625:
622:
619:
618:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
578:
576:
573:
569:
566:closed it as
565:
561:
560:
559:
556:
553:
552:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
501:
498:
497:
478:
474:
473:
472:
469:
466:
465:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
428:
424:
423:the consensus
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
403:nomination.--
401:
397:
396:WP:WIKILAWYER
393:
390:
388:
385:
382:
381:
362:
358:
357:WP:WIKILAWYER
354:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
340:
339:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
248:
247:
228:
224:
220:
210:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
156:Find sources:
152:
148:
144:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
87:
84:
82:
79:
78:
77:
72:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1006:
1003:
988:
977:Redirect to
976:
967:
959:
950:
900:
883:
866:
850:
846:
842:
825:
808:
790:
759:
731:
718:
704:
687:
672:
668:
651:
602:
596:
567:
536:
530:
508:
481:
476:
449:
440:
426:
422:
420:
391:
365:
352:
316:
308:
231:
216:
204:
198:
190:
183:
177:
171:
165:
155:
142:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
856:by the nom.
433:WP:BADFAITH
287:. Regards,
263:. Regards,
181:free images
989:Ritchie333
908:Promethean
896:WP:CANVASS
888:Paul foord
853:WP:CANVASS
739:Promethean
694:Promethean
610:Promethean
544:Promethean
489:Promethean
457:Promethean
373:Promethean
239:Promethean
58:Sandstein
1012:talk page
960:JabberJaw
597:disrupted
445:WP:LAWYER
317:a day ago
37:talk page
1014:or in a
934:Oakshade
929:WP:STALK
884:Bullshit
871:Oakshade
719:Comment:
583:Oakshade
572:WP:NPASR
517:Oakshade
513:WP:NPASR
437:WP:NPASR
405:Oakshade
400:WP:NPASR
392:Comment:
361:WP:DPAFD
353:Comment:
324:Oakshade
140:View log
39:or in a
951:Comment
932:with.--
813:LibStar
724:A Train
688:Comment
427:keeping
227:WP:ROTM
219:WP:CORP
187:WP refs
175:scholar
113:protect
108:history
919:(talk)
826:Delete
809:Delete
782:WP:DRV
764:Ajf773
760:Delete
750:(talk)
669:Delete
652:Delete
621:(talk)
564:ATrain
555:(talk)
500:(talk)
468:(talk)
384:(talk)
313:ATrain
250:(talk)
223:WP:GNG
159:Google
117:delete
50:delete
962:JAPAN
869:. --
796:Train
710:Train
679:talk
202:JSTOR
163:books
147:Stats
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
968:talk
938:talk
890:and
875:talk
834:talk
817:talk
768:talk
660:talk
587:talk
521:talk
409:talk
328:talk
297:mail
293:talk
273:mail
269:talk
225:and
195:FENS
169:news
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
674:DGG
209:TWL
138:– (
957:.
940:)
914:»
877:)
845:-
836:)
819:)
788:.
770:)
745:»
702:.
690:.
681:)
662:)
616:»
589:)
550:»
523:)
495:»
463:»
411:)
379:»
330:)
319:.
299:)
295:•
275:)
271:•
245:»
221:,
189:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
936:(
912:l
910:|
906:|
904:l
902:«
873:(
832:(
815:(
792:A
766:(
743:l
741:|
737:|
735:l
733:«
726::
722:@
706:A
696::
692:@
677:(
658:(
614:l
612:|
608:|
606:l
604:«
585:(
548:l
546:|
542:|
540:l
538:«
519:(
493:l
491:|
487:|
485:l
483:«
461:l
459:|
455:|
453:l
451:«
407:(
377:l
375:|
371:|
369:l
367:«
326:(
291:(
267:(
243:l
241:|
237:|
235:l
233:«
213:)
205:·
199:·
191:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
161:(
153:(
150:)
143:·
136:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.