Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biltmore Square Mall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep due to extensive cleanup and citing during the AFD. Non-admin closure, backlogged. Serpent's Choice (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biltmore Square Mall

Biltmore Square Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another run of the mill small US mall. The article has existed for over 30 months without any assertion of notability or expansion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fail WP:N (primary sources only help for WP:V) due to no third party sources. It could be speedy deleted for no claims of notability, the entire article is just the location of the mall and some of the stores in it. Nothing to seperate this from any other mall (there are 4 malls within 15 minutes of my house, not counting strip malls or plazas). TJ Spyke 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It was nominated for speedy under A7 and it was declined. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I wonder why, it clearly qualifies for speedy deletion. TJ Spyke 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I guess you will need to ask RMHED who rejected the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only source in article is primary, and a search for other sources online turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoa. Keep per addition of sources, notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Mr Senseless (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, lack of notability. I looked through the first ten pages of a Google search and found nothing beyond advertisements (except for this interesting entry on deadmalls.com). Has no bearing on this discussion, just thought it was interesting that some people out there spend a lot of time debating on whether or not a mall is in dire financial straits enough to be included on some website. Wait a minute... Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Was the subject of annexation, and resistance failed. Multiple online sources available for this centre.[1] This is an easy one to find online Cites for. I cannot see how "and a search for other sources online turned up none" can be said in good faith. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We're not arguing that it exists, Exit2DOS, we're arguing that it has no notability. Of course a Google search turned up evidence of its existence. The exact link you give shows that, well, there's a mall, and I suppose someone bought/sold it, which presumably happens to all malls. There is nothing inherently notable about this particular conglomeration of storefronts. Tanthalas39 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Managment and Tenants resisting annexation isnt notable? The fact that locals got up enough gumption to buy and save a dying mall isnt notable? I believe it is. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, that's why these debates exist. I cleaned up your recent additions to the article. I have no doubt that everything was in good faith, but it's just a regretful fact that if there are a half dozen typos in an edit series, including the name of the article subject itself, it won't be taken quite as seriously. At any rate, I personally still find this non-notable, but perhaps other people will find it otherwise. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I know my spelling isnt always perfect, and I tend to use English English :P Its a shame that others dont bother to improove the article as well. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:11, 4 January 2008 (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.