Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Cod Mall (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Article was just recently nominated, and weak rationale given this time around. Non-admin closure. --fuzzy510 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cape Cod Mall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non notable mall.  SLSB  talk  •  contrib   18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or possibly even speedy keep given that this was nominated for deletion less than 2 weeks ago. No compelling argument has been presented for deletion of this notable mall, and sufficient reliable third party sources are already within the article. Silensor 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:N with multiple non-trivial third party sources, and the subject is important to local commerce.  If someone can convince me that removing this article will somehow improve Wikipedia, I'm all ears. RFerreira 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, weak rationale from nominator. Mall passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions.   -- Bduke 22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Only just kept a few days ago - this is a WP:POINT nomination. Rebecca 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, nom presents no compelling argument. Article relisted about a week after the last AfD closed. -- Irixman (t) (m) 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, no real argument is made for deletion other than one that is to be avoided, especially in a nomination. Yamaguchi先生 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The previous AfD was closed as a "no consensus" when there seemed to be clear consensus to "keep" the article as is, a situation that only serves to invite second (and third, and fourth...) AfDs down the road. Alansohn 01:46, 13 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.