Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit Park Mall

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 Redirect to Niagara Falls - shopping facilities as content is already moved there and fails WP:CORP as a stand-alone. Shell ^babelfish 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summit Park Mall

As I understand it a shopping mall is not noteable. Blood red sandman 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually some shopping malls are notable enough to warrant articles. I don't know enough about this place to cast an informed vote, however, so no vote. 23skidoo 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At 800,000 square feet, it's fairly big, and the external links show verifiability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiable or not, it just isn't remotely germaine enough to justify an article. Legis 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Malls are businesses. This fails to show evidence of passing WP:CORP. GRBerry 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:CORP "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Please review the multiple non-trivial published articles listed as external links in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see multiple non-trivial coverage. The deadmalls.com site looks like a blog, not a reliable source, so I discount it completely. The Business First of Buffalo article looks like trivial coverage to me, and at most a barely worked over reprint of a press release, so I don't count it as independent, non-trivial coverage. (That reprint requirement is very hard to test, we essentially have to use a "sniff test", which is part of the reason that I think WP:CORP could be improved.) The last, Niagra Gazette article does look like an independent non-trivial article. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... this is a typical mall and nothing, not even the local press coverage, distinguishes it. Personally I don't think WP:CORP necessarily should be applied to a mall. This just reinforces the need for a guideline for buildings and physical locations.--Isotope23 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a bit upsetting after the RfA. One deletion proponent says that the article doesn't meet WP:CORP, so I demonstrate that it does. And then a second deletion proponent says that WP:CORP doesn't apply. TruthbringerToronto (Talk contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't know what RfA has to do with anything... but I said personally I don't think WP:CORP should apply to malls...--Isotope23 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand that other people don't believe WP:CORP; I seem to be the strongest advocate of that position, as I rarely see it referenced in a Mall AFD discussion before I arrive. That is part of why I usually include an explanation of why it does apply. I also don't see what other standard too apply. I've seen articles for strip malls, and when we count those things there are about as many around as there are schools (in developed countries at least), so we need some standard. WP:CORP isn't perfect, either for suitability to malls or as a general standard for companies, but it does apply better than anything else we have, at least in my opinion. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.--Isotope23 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Their are lots of articles about shopping malls, this mall has a lot of history to it. It is located near a tourist town and tourist's can read about it if they come to Niagara Falls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14305 Man (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This should be merged with the folowing articles: Rainbow Mall, and Fashion Outlets Niagara Falls as a new article called Malls in Niagara Falls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waluigi300 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Niagara Falls - shopping facilities; a new article created at the suggestion of the author. I have already merged the content of this article into the new article together with Fashion Outlets Niagara Falls and Rainbow Mall. BlueValour 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GRBerry. Bigtop 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why you need a more thorough discussion. It's thorough enough already. GRBerry has been clear and persuasive (and polite). Delete. -- Hoary 11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the authors have found a secondary reference that is verifiable and written a reasonable stub. Addhoc 11:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per addhoc. SliceNYC 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as BlueValour already merged the content to a combination article. The final step of a merge is a redirect. My understanding of the GFDL is that after a merge redirection is required and deletion is no longer appropriate. If I'm wrong about that, stay with my original opinion of deletion for the reasons given above. GRBerry 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per addhoc this is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 12:41, 28 August 2006 (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.