Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavilion in the Park

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 (no strong consensus to delete). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pavilion in the Park

Pavilion in the Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Spammy page on a mall in Arkansas. A search for reliable sources turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Pavilion in the Park is not a mall. It is a very notable upscale shopping center that is unique in our state. I haven't had the chance to research it properly and expand the article. Just because you can't Google something doesn't mean it isn't important. --The_stuart (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Argh. Stupid Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep article makes claims of notability, with reliable sources provided. Article would benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per stuart. Shiva_eVolved 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete upscale shopping center is essentially a marketing term for a mall. Not sure if the claims of being unique are just marketing. Most descriptions seem to contradict the idea of it being either unique or upscale. --Neon white (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and lack of adequate sourcing in the article. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep With reliable sources provided in a article along with the notability of the article, it does have the potential to expand. Give the article some time to expand by other editors like sourcing, copyediting, etc. PrestonH 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

One very small source that could be argued is a little trivial. --Neon white (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We should find other souces then, and if in no condition it hasn't improved in months then delete. But for right now, keep. PrestonH 05:11, 15 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.