Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtabula 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashtabula Mall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Mall would fails WP:RS and WP:V. No claims to notability are made. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While the article writing has improved, for the third time, no assertion of notability has been made for this mall. — Travis talk  02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page wasn't made by the same author as those other two. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, the comment at my second link above must be incorrect, so I'll strike part of my comment for now. I still see no evidence of notability, though. — Travis talk  13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination.Kww 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I rewrote this article a while back (take a look at the initial version, it looked like a six-year-old wrote it). I would think that the prototype Kmart store and 300th Phar-Mor seem to be somewhat significant claims. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that explains the improved writing. — Travis talk  04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If this mall's Kmart isn't already mentioned in the chain's article, it couldn't be that important. Besides, for a cultural institution that is so widespread, one semi-notable Kmart doesn't equal notability. VanTucky  (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although the facility may not seem notable, the two points about Kmart and Phar-More give it more notability that some malls on Wikipedia. --Nenyedi Talk Deeds@ 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)--
 * Keep A mall with a gross leasable area of more than a million square clearly meets the super-regional standard, which combined with sources provided satisfies the Notability standard. Alansohn 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the ICSC definitions, its size makes it a "super-regional" mall. No super-regional mall has been deleted in AFDs this year. Per Shopping mall such a mall "serves as the dominant shopping venue for the region in which it located." A little research should produce multiple references, since such a mall draws customers from 25 miles away or farther. It would be bizarre to delete this super-regional mall of 1,074,470 square feet of gross leasable area, when we have just this week kept in AFDs article for malls of only 178,000 square feet Articles for deletion/Waitakere Mega Centre 390,978 square feet Articles for deletion/Southmall Manurewa and 396,000 square feet. Articles for deletion/Westfield Manukau City. This is not the "othercrapexists" argument, it is an observation of consensus for notability of malls as shown by AFDs.Edison 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I somewhat doubt we'll ever have a mall-specific notability guideline, but I'm inclined to say that shopping centres of a million square feet plus are generally notable as major regional commerce points. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment The last thing wikipedia needs is another set of arbitrarily notable objects. I've given up tagging articles about any man that ever kicked a ball or waved an oddly shaped stick at one, TV episode synopses of obscure children's shows, and now shopping malls? Blech.Kww 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds like a new deletion argument: "I can't delete pro football/soccer players or baseball/cricket players or Simpsons episodes, so I will delete malls". Very innnovative, but not an accepted deletion argument. Edison 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Retort No, it's just an objection to arbitrary standards creating notability, rather than actual notability creating notability. I got a speedy overturned the other day on the basis that the seller claimed to sell stuff, and selling stuff is inherently notable. It sounds like you want "being a big mall" to be inherently notable. It isn't.Kww 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In fact, no super-regional mall (over 800.000 square feet) has been deleted in 2007. The AFD results speak for the consensus of those who have participated in AFD discussions far better than a few fans of somethinbg making up criteria in a notability guideline. Edison 03:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Malls? What next? --Leocomix 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you have a valid deletion argument you wished to state?Edison 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete size alone is not encyclopedic, and a suggestion that super-regionals were did not win consensus at WP:MALL. Lists of changed anchors has also been considered nonencyclopedic there. This is a good example of a large one  that is not notable, at least from available information. DGG (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I believe thre was consensus for notability of the few hundred superregional malls in the US (above 800,000 square feet of retail space) in WP:MALL which ultimately failed to achieve consensus itself as a notability guideline. Edison 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per edison. Mathmo Talk 04:21, 12 August 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.