Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asbury Plaza

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. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asbury Plaza

Asbury Plaza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:N and WP:V Адам12901 ^Talk 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please say how it fails WP:V. Are you suggesting it is unverifiable? How have you tried to verify it and failed? I genuinely don't understand that? Is it unverifiable?--Doc^g 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not have any verification on it. Even the website of the mall is not listed (not that it counts at all). It has not been backed up with independent sources. --Адам12901 ^Talk 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood policy. If an article lacks verification, then you should seek to verify it - or mark it as {{unverified}} that another might seek to do so. We only delete articles if they are unverifiABLE, that is they CANNOT be verified. Sure this article may currently be unverifiED, and is a concern we need to fix - but not by deletion. Ss it unverifiABLE? Unless it is, then it does not contravene WP:V.--Doc^g 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. CyberAnth 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet the proposed WP:MALL. MER-C 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MALL, as of this writing, is not a guideline. 1ne 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If it gets cited often enough, it will become a guideline. That's apparently how it is done rather than having a vote somewhere. Edison 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Except it's not a guideline. 1ne 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with Retail environment of Dubuque, Iowa and stop persecuting Malls.--Doc^g 12:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Doc glasgow. 1ne 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Glasgow. Atom 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep perhaps - but there is no reason to speedy close this debate. Please don't use 'speedy' unless you are suggesting there are grounds for ending the discussion.--Doc^g 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per [1] it has 853,000 square feet of GLA, not enough to consider it a regional mall, per WP:MALL. I don't see other historic (too new) or architectural bases for keeping it. Edison 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As the author of Asbury Plaza and a local living 1 mile away, I can say that Asbury Plaza is notable in that it has had an enormous impact on the local economy. It is the largest shopping center in Dubuque, a city of significant regional and historical importance, and is a fine example of major changes taking place in the city. Also, the center itself is merely one part of a much larger commercial expansion in its neighborhood, much of which is only recent, and has yet to be documented. (Example: Sam's Club in Dubuque opens next wk, yet is unlisted on their own website) As Asbury Plaza is a "power center" and not a traditional enclosed shopping mall, these types of complexes tend not to have significant press since they are generally much smaller than A.P. Also, contradicting [2], which says that A.P. is not actively under construction, I can say fairly that this is untrue as well. Last week, another announcement came that a 100,000+ sq. ft. building will be built this year at A.P., likely placing it >1 mil. sq. ft. if it is not there already. DBQer 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, it's just a big shopping center. The fact that it impacts the local economy doesn't make it distinct from any other shopping center of its size and in my mind is not enough of a claim of notability. delldot | talk 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Retail environment of Dubuque, Iowa. Oh, wait it already is. The only substantial difference is this lists some of the businesses renting space in the building (currently, I assume). How about a simple redirect? --maclean 07:42, 10 January 2007 (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.