Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Hills Crossing


 * 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 07:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cedar Hills Crossing

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable mall in Oregon. Only context is the site's contamination in the 1980s, which is far from unique. Only sources are an aerial photo (!) and some analysis of the site. A Google search turns up mainly links to the mall's theater complex, so the mall fails WP:RS and WP:V. Almost no context is given to the mall's stores either. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is a stub which could be expanded to include information about its stores. This page can definitely be improved, rather than deleted.  - Rjd0060 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Okay, anything can be expanded, that's not really a valid reason for keeping the article. Nothing in the article asserts why this particular mall is notable enough to merit its own page. Unless the underground gas leak caused hideous mutations to all mall occupants at the time, I don't think this particular mall deserves an article. -- Cyrus      Andiron   16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks notable to me and meets our standards for verifiability through multiple non trivial sources.  What's the problem?  Bur nt sau ce  21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that one of the sources is an aerial photo, and the others are site analysis that barely mention the mall? Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:OUTCOMES. Non-notable mall.  Corvus cornix 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:OUTCOMES is irrelevant, as notability is clearly conveyed within the article and backed by a half dozen different reliable sources.  I could care less if one of them is an aerial photo.  RFerreira 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks assertion of notabilty.  Yes, it exists, but that is not the same as notability.  Vegaswikian 05:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Sources are reliable as public agencies and established scientific labs. Notability is chiefly due to the site's being an historic airport in American aviation history, where many innovations in aircraft design were first tested. Woodsylass 04:18, 8 October 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.