An editor has nominated Cambridge Centre, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Centre and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a new user, welcome to Wikipedia. With regards to your recent actions, it would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as it appears you did with Cambridge Centre. The information boxes are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them without a valid reason is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.--Xnuala (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Cambridge Centre. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. An admin or other closer will remove this template after the afd is complete. Continuing to remove it constitutes vandalism.--Xnuala (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! If you would kindly humour me and read the AFD discussion, I have !voted to keep Cambridge Centre. I continue to restore the AFD tag on the article because removing the tag DOES NOT mean that the article is not being considered for deletion but can cause other interested parties (who may want to keep the article) not to be informed of the deletion debate. It is also considered vandalism to repeatedly remove AFD notices. If you need any help in understanding more about this process, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page! Thanks, --Xnuala (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is mine, I took it when I attended the school a few years back. Do I have to create an account at Wikimedia Commons? Because to be honest, I don't really want to.--The Dominator (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You haven't provided a valid source for the anchors -- the store directory identifies department stores, not anchors, and department stores are not necessarily anchors in this day and age (and Wikipedia is not a directory of different store types in a mall, except perhaps for anchors). You need a source that actually identifies the anchors, and either the same source or a different source that identifies the sub-anchors.
Store directories and official mall sites usually aren't the best place to look. The corporate site for Oxford Properties, esp. the leasing information, is probably your best bet. Sometimes retail and shopping mall industry publications also provide the necessary source.
The historic anchors should be no problem. I'm not worried about that. I must've read a hundred different pieces on Yorkdale over the years, identifying Eaton's and Simpsons (and maybe even Dominion and Kresges) as anchors when the centre opened.
The article must comply with WP:V and WP:OR. Period. Having sources that don't actually support the information in the article is no better than having no sources at all. Until you find sources that identify the anchors and sub-anchors, the tag is appropriate and should remain. I have no problem if you would like to retain the sources you did find in the article, but absent correct sources, the references to the store directory will not prevent the eventual deletion of this section. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you found a source. That's great. The article still needs a source for the anchor store sizes (we need to know where these numbers came from), but I won't retag the anchor section for now because I know you've been working hard on it and will be able to find something. As for the subanchors, we still need a source -- I suspect this will be difficult, as I am guessing that someone made this "subanchor" stuff up. I will find a source for the historic anchors. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. Twice now I have started to type a response, and been pulled away to deal with something else in "real life". I'll get back to you shortly. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sorry for the delay. First, I think there is no problem using the older floor plan -- if the stats are still good for the anchors, then it's fine. At some point someone may find something more current, but in the meantime it does the trick. As for the list of sub-anchors, relabelling it as "majors" gives rise to the same problems with WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V (who deemed these to be "major" vis-a-vis the rest of the mall?). If the list of "majors" is strictly based on GFA, then there still might be WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues (who decided on the cut-off point? Why can't other retailers be included?), but more importantly it becomes a run-of-the-mill directory contrary to WP:NOT and which we try to avoid (as per WP:ANC). Fundamentally, this has the potential to be a great article, and there are so many interesting to say about this mall. That includes references to some of its tenants either because of the recognized significant role they play (the anchors), for historic reasons (Eaton's, Simpsons) or because there is something noteworthy to say about a particular tenant in the context of Yorkdale (e.g. the first Apple Store in Canada). But the fact that an Old Navy outlet (one among more than a thousand) merely exists in the mall is not particularly noteworthy, and borders on trivia. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I moved Fairview Park Mall to Fairview Park (shopping centre), and I was just wondering about why you say that that is not the correct name. Also, you could have left a message on my Talk page, to talk about it. I thought that the name of the mall was officially "Fairview Park", due to it being the only page listed on their Web site, as well as the name that appears on signs on the building itself. After seeing your comments in the article, I thought that the best source for the "official" name would be the listing in the telephone directory, which is indeed "Fairview Park Mall". It also fits the naming convention of "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". So I'm going to move it back. -- timc talk 04:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... I was under the impression that the public record is a credible source and the inline reference to the City of Toronto Building Permit Applications Status would be sufficient. I can link to the main web site, but since it is a searchable database, I cannot link to the exact page. 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
