Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Mall Valdosta

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, seems to be a clear consensus here. This closure is no reflection of my own !vote in it, but rather a reflection of the general consensus among other !votes. The discussion has been active for three days now, so I see no harm in closing it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial Mall Valdosta

Colonial Mall Valdosta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Mall seems to fail notability criteria. Only claim to anything in the article is the fact that this mall siphoned five stores off of another shopping center. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Another non notable shopping mall. It is just there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are several articles [1] [2] all be it local ones that are specifically about it, the newspaper appears to be reliable and verifiable. --Neon white (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Weak Keep not a very notable mall, but the sources by Neon white are a start. Actually the page is out of date was out of date until I moved it. It's no longer "Colonial Mall Valdosta", it's been reverted to its original name, Valdosta Mall. The local sources may be reliable, but they establish only local notability, which isn't usually enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Changing vote to "weak keep" as I've added a couple sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you read Wikipedia:Notability you will find no mention of locality in relation to notability. It says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The lack of multiple sources may be an issue. In this case it is more usual to merge the article with a more general article such as Valdosta, Georgia --Neon white (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is called Colonial Mall Valdosta, not Valdosta Mall. The link Valdosta Mall does not work. This mall is on [http://colonialprop.com/property-info/shopping-info.php?cid=1260 the Colonial Prooperties website and it still says Colonial Mall above the mall. Why do you think its called Valdosta Mall? It isn't. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The http://shopvaldostamall.com link is just down right now, it was working an hour ago. Also, Colonial's website is out of date. See this and this, both of which say that Jones Lang LaSalle recently acquired "Valdosta Mall in Valdosta, Georgia". It's also listed as "Valdosta Mall" on Jones Lang LaSalle's list of properties. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Nominating articles for deletion is just another method of Nazi Wiki Editors who would rather tag or delete something instead of fix it or add to it. How can anything become notable when someone jumps in and nominates it for deletion an hour after it is posted? I have more I want to add to this article and will do so later if it isn't deleted. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article as it currently stands provides a basic claim of notability. Not only do I question the validity (and civility) of an AfD created within seven minutes of the article's creation, but I question how the nominator could have fulfilled his obligations under Wikipedia:deletion policy to research the article's potential notability and to edit and improve the article, if possible. The fact that the article has been improved after the seven minutes alloted by the nominator would seem to make it apparent that this basic due diligence has not been met. While I believe that the nomination is inappropriate, I do not feel that this AfD proves that the nominator subscribes to any elements of Nazi Wiki ideology. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Nominating an article for deletion 7 minutes after its been posted is suspicious none-the-less. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep might just scrape past WP:N. RMHED (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply does not assert notability. Fails WP:CORP. Based on previous AfDs it would need to be at least 800,000 sq ft to be notable. Vegaswikian 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Anything that can be proven "Based on previous AfDs", can also be refuted "Based on previous AfDs". AfD goes on a case by case basis. Your basing notability on size, see WP:BIG Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the comments above, scrapes beyond WP:N and verifiability, but should be retained nonetheless. RFerreira 07:24, 2 December 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.