Talk:Sierra Vista Mall

Sources for a potential article

[1], [2] Unscintillating (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This "book" to which you refer is a master's thesis that is only available at Fresno: [3]. It makes no sense to add {{R with possibilities}} (which denotes enough sourcing at the main article that the redirect topic could ostensibly break out on its own) after the topic was just deleted at AfD for lack of sourcing. Per BRD, I reverted your addition and we should have consensus before you just add it back again. czar ♔ 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• The closing administrator did not say that the article was deleted for lack of sourcing.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Do you agree that WP:N does not require sourcing, but rather it requires evidence?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Do you agree that any requirement for "possibilities" is lower than the requirement for "wp:notability", so the R with possibilities template does not require sourcing?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• I started looking at Google web, and found a regional source, [4]. 
• Regarding your statement that the thesis is only available in Fresno, it is sold on Amazon, [5], and both new and used copies were available today.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What? The {{R with possibilities}} tag is to make printworthy redirects for topics that show potential for expanding into their own articles. We just closed an AfD that said this isn't such an article. The thesis is still not a book on Amazon—it's published verbatim, unedited, and without fact-check (under God knows what copyright) with a blind listing of other theses. I don't see what else there is to discuss without extremely wishful and unsubstantiated thinking. I don't see how the other points here are germane. The redirect tag is contested and should be removed unless there is consensus to add it. czar ♔ 03:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Plenum Publishers is an imprint of Springer.  Are you saying that you have evidence that Springer and Amazon are involved in copyright abuse?  The thesis was accepted by Fresno State, so are you saying you have evidence of a problem in the acceptance process at Fresno State?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• I did not find that the use of the word "extremely" in your last post was helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• If you are not answering my questions, then how is this a "discussion"?  By not answering my questions, you are conceding the point, which is that sources are not required for the "possibilities" template.  Your claim that the AfD invalidates this template is not supported either by the statement of the closing admin or any other evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding your comment at the AfD that you found, "No significant coverage in...ProQuest but the passing mentions to be expected from the American institution that serves the role of community center.", did you find 1200+ hits on Proquest, and 300+ with full text?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What question didn't I answer that needed answering? The point that I had any objection to your adding a template should mean that it goes to the talk page for discussion, not your immediate revert. Your claim that there is a 200-page book that proves notability goes against the conclusion of the recent AfD, mainly because that book is a master's thesis, which have previously been discussed for lack of credibility. That it was republished in toto with no editorial discretion doesn't change that. The closing admin explicitly stated that he didn't even see consensus to redirect after closing the AfD, so that we're even still having this discussion is a stretch. I found no hits on ProQuest that I would consider anything more than passing mentions (a news article mentioning that such and such an event will be at the mall, the same for how it would be listed for a mall in my community)—no non-local notability. But again, that conversation has concluded, and I'm only saying anything because I have a valid case against your adding that template, which is contested and should be removed. czar ♔ 12:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: At the recent Sierra Vista Mall AfD, an editor stated, regarding the first entry at Google books, "I can't find...that 200-page book..."  When this editor removed the "possibilities" template, I restored it, mentioning the book, diff.  Now, this same editor is showing experienced knowledge of Wikipedia procedures, and states above that he/she has "a valid case" based on my restoration.  I request that you make an edit, possibly null, to this article and identify the edit as the "baseline version", so that conversation and possibly edits to the article can resume.  It is fine with me if you flip a coin to decide this edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • I'm completely confused and nodding off fast. Ping me again, explain a little better what you want, and I will see if I can get you what you need tomorrow. Do you need it temporarily userfied or something? Again ping me, but don't expect an answer until I've had coffee and checked my voice mail in the morning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Please edit this redirect and identify the edit as a "baseline version".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Please see previous requests.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm just lost as to what you want me to do that you can't do yourself. The article isn't protected. I'm not sure what you mean by edit as a "baseline version". If you are wanting to recreate the article, just do it in user space and if it looks like it can remotely pass AFD, I can just move it over the redirect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: I didn't say "edit as a 'baseline version' "; I said, "identify the edit as a 'baseline version' ", by which I meant put the words "baseline version" in the edit summary.  Even if you don't know what it is that I can't do for myself, is there anything you can do to resolve or move this "case"?  I'm not asking for a lot here...a coin toss and one edit should suffice.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I haven't read all the above, and maybe I'm dense but I generally don't do anything without understanding "why?". Maybe it is just normal admin paranoia over accountability of actions and the fact that I closed this AFD, but...why? If it just starts a new article, that would be undoing the AFD without review, which is why I said to just art it in user space and I will review. My threshold isn't that high, it just has to have a snowball's chance of passing an AFD, but instantly starting over the old one when the AFD just ended isn't proper. I'm not even asking you to go to REFUND or anything, I'm not trying to bureaucratic, I just need something to go on before I bless undoing what I just did. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Unscintillating wants you to determine whether {{R with possibilities}} is an appropriate template for this redirect. czar ♔ 03:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dennis, If you don't want to analyze the dispute as if it was at ANI, then flipping a coin and making one edit ends the dispute and hopefully discussion resumes.  I cannot do this myself.  My primary alternative at this point is to remove this article from my watch list, and continue any work on this topic at Clovis, CA.  This dispute has to do with the possibilities template, as I detailed in my first request to you.  No one has said anything to you about starting a new article, REFUND, userfication, or "undoing" the AfD.  My purpose for the possibilities template is to empower an editor to write the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Czar, sometimes I need things in plain English. Honestly, that is not a redirect I've seen much of or given any thought about or ever used, so pardon my ignorance. Looking back, I have to stick to my original close and not get involved in this article. ie: I don't see a consensus to redirect after this deletion, but if an editor thinks a fresh redirect is warranted, I would leave that to them. If it gets recreated again, you can ask for salt with your CSD#G4. I suggest WP:3O, WP:DRN or just putting a notice on a neutral project. I closed as delete, I can't bless or condemn a new version before it is written as I closed the AFD. Arms length, and all that. I've offered to review a completed version, which I think is ok as it is a separate admin act from closing, but I'm not going to decide which redirect tag is best here. That is for editors to decide, not admin, per the close and policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to read my OP while thanking Czar for his OP does not have the appearance of "arms length".  I do appreciate your offers of support to an editor who wants to write this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)